Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is the general rule of common law regarding the admissibility of opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses?
What is the general rule of common law regarding the admissibility of opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses?
- They are admissible as they are considered objective facts
- They are admissible only if supported by physical evidence
- They are inadmissible to prove the truth of the matters believed or inferred (correct)
- They are only admissible if they are based on personal experience
What is the main concern of expert evidence?
What is the main concern of expert evidence?
- An expert's opinion on a specific matter (correct)
- Establishing facts through eyewitness testimony
- Presenting circumstantial evidence
- Questioning the credibility of witnesses
What is the significance of the case of Buckley v Rice Thoms (1554)?
What is the significance of the case of Buckley v Rice Thoms (1554)?
- It introduced the concept of voir dire
- It established the admissibility of expert evidence (correct)
- It limited the use of circumstantial evidence
- It established the admissibility of eyewitness testimony
What was the main issue in the case of R v Luttrell?
What was the main issue in the case of R v Luttrell?
What is the purpose of a voir dire in R v Luttrell?
What is the purpose of a voir dire in R v Luttrell?
What is a characteristic of expert evidence?
What is a characteristic of expert evidence?
In the case of R v Reed, what was the minimum level of DNA required to provide an evidential basis?
In the case of R v Reed, what was the minimum level of DNA required to provide an evidential basis?
What is the main concern with using DNA evidence to secure a conviction?
What is the main concern with using DNA evidence to secure a conviction?
In R v Tserkiri, what was the ruling on using DNA evidence as the sole basis for a conviction?
In R v Tserkiri, what was the ruling on using DNA evidence as the sole basis for a conviction?
What is the approach that courts have rejected in relation to evidence of probabilities?
What is the approach that courts have rejected in relation to evidence of probabilities?
What is the primary duty of an expert witness, according to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?
What is the primary duty of an expert witness, according to the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?
What is the consequence of an expert witness being an interested party in the proceedings?
What is the consequence of an expert witness being an interested party in the proceedings?
What is the primary purpose of Rule 19.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?
What is the primary purpose of Rule 19.6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015?
What is the principle established in the case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority?
What is the principle established in the case of Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority?
What is a potential criticism of the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?
What is a potential criticism of the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?
What is a proposed alternative to the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?
What is a proposed alternative to the adversarial system in relation to expert evidence?
What is a characteristic of science, as described in the context of expert evidence?
What is a characteristic of science, as described in the context of expert evidence?
What is the role of the trier of fact in relation to expert evidence?
What is the role of the trier of fact in relation to expert evidence?
According to the common law, what is the requirement for admitting expert evidence?
According to the common law, what is the requirement for admitting expert evidence?
When is expert evidence not necessary?
When is expert evidence not necessary?
What is the consequence of admitting expert evidence?
What is the consequence of admitting expert evidence?
What is the general principle regarding expert evidence in defences?
What is the general principle regarding expert evidence in defences?
What is the prosecutor's fallacy in DNA evidence?
What is the prosecutor's fallacy in DNA evidence?
What is the issue with admitting DNA evidence?
What is the issue with admitting DNA evidence?
What is the purpose of expert evidence in credibility?
What is the purpose of expert evidence in credibility?
What is the requirement for admissibility of expert evidence under the common law?
What is the requirement for admissibility of expert evidence under the common law?
What is the significance of the case R v Luttrell?
What is the significance of the case R v Luttrell?
What is the significance of the case R v Gabriel?
What is the significance of the case R v Gabriel?
Under the general rule of common law, opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses are admissible to prove the truth of the matters believed or inferred.
Under the general rule of common law, opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses are admissible to prove the truth of the matters believed or inferred.
Expert evidence is admissible because it is based on the expert's personal experience.
Expert evidence is admissible because it is based on the expert's personal experience.
The case of R v Luttrell was about the admissibility of DNA evidence.
The case of R v Luttrell was about the admissibility of DNA evidence.
Expert evidence is an exception to the general principle that hearsay is admissible.
Expert evidence is an exception to the general principle that hearsay is admissible.
A voir dire is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert evidence.
A voir dire is a hearing to determine the admissibility of expert evidence.
The case of Buckley v Rice Thoms established the principle that expert evidence is inadmissible.
The case of Buckley v Rice Thoms established the principle that expert evidence is inadmissible.
The court in R v Luttrell held that lip reading is not a recognized skill.
The court in R v Luttrell held that lip reading is not a recognized skill.
Expert evidence is always necessary in a court of law.
Expert evidence is always necessary in a court of law.
The reliability of an expert is assessed by the jury.
The reliability of an expert is assessed by the jury.
The authority of an expert is part of the point, providing they only carry the weight they are due.
The authority of an expert is part of the point, providing they only carry the weight they are due.
The common law covers the admissibility of expert evidence in all cases.
The common law covers the admissibility of expert evidence in all cases.
Expert evidence is never admissible in cases where the defendant is considered 'normal'.
Expert evidence is never admissible in cases where the defendant is considered 'normal'.
The case of R v Reed set a minimum level of DNA of 100pcg to provide an evidential basis.
The case of R v Reed set a minimum level of DNA of 100pcg to provide an evidential basis.
Juries are designed to make decisions based on expert evidence alone.
Juries are designed to make decisions based on expert evidence alone.
It is possible to secure a conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence.
It is possible to secure a conviction solely on the basis of DNA evidence.
DNA evidence is always conclusive.
DNA evidence is always conclusive.
Juries can add up probabilities of individual pieces of evidence to calculate the probability of guilt.
Juries can add up probabilities of individual pieces of evidence to calculate the probability of guilt.
The prosecutor's fallacy is a common misconception about DNA evidence.
The prosecutor's fallacy is a common misconception about DNA evidence.
Experts are required to be impartial and unbiased in their opinions.
Experts are required to be impartial and unbiased in their opinions.
Expert evidence is always admissible in cases where the defendant's credibility is in question.
Expert evidence is always admissible in cases where the defendant's credibility is in question.
An expert witness is never considered an interested party in the proceedings.
An expert witness is never considered an interested party in the proceedings.
The primary role of expert evidence is to help the trier of fact achieve their objective.
The primary role of expert evidence is to help the trier of fact achieve their objective.
In the adversarial system, the court always appoints a single expert to advise on the reliability of parties' experts.
In the adversarial system, the court always appoints a single expert to advise on the reliability of parties' experts.
The Bolitho test requires expert opinions to be logical and defensible upon interrogation.
The Bolitho test requires expert opinions to be logical and defensible upon interrogation.
Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, Rule 19.6, requires experts to provide reports instead of appearing and giving testimony.
Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, Rule 19.6, requires experts to provide reports instead of appearing and giving testimony.
The jury or trier of fact is bound to follow expert opinion in all cases.
The jury or trier of fact is bound to follow expert opinion in all cases.
Expert evidence is always necessary in criminal proceedings.
Expert evidence is always necessary in criminal proceedings.
In inquisitorial systems, expert evidence is convened by the parties, rather than the court.
In inquisitorial systems, expert evidence is convened by the parties, rather than the court.
Study Notes
Admissibility of Expert Evidence
- General rule: opinions, beliefs, and inferences of witnesses are inadmissible, except for expert evidence
- Expert evidence is an exception to the general principle that opinions are inadmissible
- Expert evidence has been accepted since Buckley v Rice Thoms (1554)
R v Luttrell
- Lip reading evidence from video footage was allowed as expert evidence
- The court held that lip reading is a well-recognised skill and from video footage is a further application of that skill
Principles of Admissibility
- Necessity: is expert evidence needed on the issue in question?
- Reliability: is the expert suitably qualified to give the expert evidence?
- If conditions are met, the evidence of the expert is admissible, but the weight to be attached is assessed by the tribunal of fact
Necessity
- If the trier of fact (jury) can make their own decision, no expert is needed
- But if the issue goes beyond the experience of an ordinary person, expert evidence may be necessary
- The authority of an expert is part of the point, providing they only carry the weight they are due
Examples of Expert Evidence
- MR, Defences, and Credibility Part 1
- If D is 'normal', no expert opinion is needed
- R v Chard: jurors decide as ordinary, reasonable people
- R v Toner: expert evidence on the possible effect of mild hypoglycaemia was allowed
- R v Masih: low IQ, expert evidence generally admissible
- Defences
- R v Turner: 'the stresses and strains of life'
- R v Hurst: sought to adduce psychiatric evidence by duress by threats
- Credibility
- R v Turner: Was D being truthful? No expert needed to determine credibility
DNA Evidence
- There is a common misconception that DNA evidence is conclusive
- The 'prosecutor's fallacy'
- R v Doheny: Court of Appeal gave guidance on DNA evidence
- R v Gabriel: case of conspiracy to possess firearms, DNA evidence linked three people to the firearm
Expert Witnesses
- Qualification and duties
- Experts must be suitably qualified to give their opinions
- Duties must be clear, so they don't usurp the trier of fact
- Expert reports
- Experts can provide reports instead of appearing and giving testimony
- Counsel can push experts to edit their reports
Assessing Expert Opinion
- The jury/trier of fact is not bound to follow expert opinion
- It is important that the trier of fact retains their discretion to decide on what the facts actually are
- Expert should not override the jury's discretion or judgment
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Test your knowledge on the rules and exceptions of admitting expert evidence in court, including the general principle and established cases like Buckley v Rice Thoms. How well do you understand the admissibility of expert opinions in legal proceedings?
