Fire Investigation as the Judicial Process - Report Example

Fire investigation Fire investigation is important in judicial process where investigators of fires are called upon as to give expert evidence. Four requirements which relates to admissibility of expert evidence in criminal cases have been developed at common law that principally is pegged on opinion evidence. For fire investigation results to be admissible in courts of law it is important for the following four requirements to be met: assistance, “relevant expertise”, “impartiality” and “evidentiary reliability”. Assistance Taking the example of the leading case of Turner expert opinion may be necessary in furnishing the court with some information that the judge or jury have no experience or knowledge about. For the case where the judge or jury can be able to use proven facts in making their conclusions about a case then there may be need to have expert opinion (2SCR 9, 1994). This means that the evidence that is from expert opinion such as that of a fire investigator can only be admissible if it is providing he court with information that the judge or the jury does not have knowledge and experience in addition to the information being helpful for the judges or jury in making their conclusions. In the Turner’s case it was suggested by the Court of Appeal an expert evidence may not be admissible is it is regarded as being unnecessary. Furthermore for the evidence that is admissible it is only necessary to a limited sense to which the evidence is able to provide relevant information which the judge and the jury lack knowledge or experience of. Relevant expertise It is important that when expert opinion such as that of a fire investigator the background of the expert giving opinion is important and should be pass as being an expert in the field. A description of this is given in a South Australian case of Bonython (38 SASR 45. 1984) where it is emphasized that an individual ought to have acquired sufficient knowledge on the subject matter through studying and/or experience so as to make their opinion to be of value and this description is agreed upon in England and Wales. In general terms the expertise itself is the most important such that it is used in determination of whether the admissibility threshold has been achieved and not the path through which the expert passed before having the expertise (Silverlock, 1894). A judicial comment which has been made in the recent passed pointed out the threshold set to demonstrate that one was indeed a qualified expert is quite low (R (Doughty) v Ely Magistrates’ Court , 2008). However, it is worthwhile to note that the set threshold cannot fall below the requirement for proof on the balance of probabilities and also amateurs are regarded as being unqualified in giving some types of expert evidence (Robb, 1991). Currently there is also progress being made in the formulation of explicit guide lines for determination of expertise in various scientific fields including fire investigation (Henderson and others, 2010). Impartiality Fire investigators just like any other expert are supposed to give evidence which is impartial and objective when called upon. His is well depicted in the civil case of Field versus Leeds City Council Lored Woolf the master of Roll was of the opinion that so as for one to be a qualified expert for giving evidence; he/she should be in a position of giving an objective and unbiased opinion on the matter on which the evidence relates. A case of recent past is hat of Toth versus Jarman where the civil division of the court of appeal noted that it was important for an expert witness to be able to provide independent assistance to a court by giving and opinion that is objective and unbiased and for the case where there is a conflict of interest by expert witness then the court may be at liberty to decline acting on the opinion of the expert or even go further and permit for the evidence to be adduced (EWCA Civ 1028, 2006). The admissibility requirement of the common law has been effected in criminal proceedings through explicit provision of secondary legislation. In Rule 33.2 in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 there is provision that the expert when called upon in a court will have overriding duty of giving opinion evidence that is objective and unbiased. In some civil proceedings it has been held that evidence from an expert will not be admissible if from the point of view of a reasonable person the expert appears to be leaning in favour the person that has called for the expert’s service even though this stand was not agreeable in the case of Factortame Ltd versus Secretary of State for transport, Local Government and Regions as well as in the case involving Morgan versus Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd (EWCA, 2009). Regardless of the standings seen in civil proceedings, it is currently clear that apparent bias does not render make the evidence given by the expert to be inadmissible in criminal proceedings. Evidentiary reliability Reliability is another aspect of expert opinion evidence that need to meet a certain threshold. The pointer of existence of further common law admissibility requirements of some kind can be put in perspective in cases where the Criminal Division of Court of Appeal has Held that the field of expertise ought to be well established such that it is able to pass ordinary tests with regards to relevance and reliability Been able to cite admissibility test for expert opinion evidence in Bonython (22) where there is reliability component is evident even though not having undergone any proper analysis in England and Wales Where there has been suggestion of a particular type of reliability test. In Bonthon the requirement for admissibility was described as to whether the subject matter on which the export opinion is to be given was a component of a body of knowledge or experience that is organized sufficiently or is recognizable as being accepted to being reliable body of knowledge or experience (38 SASR (1984). In a consultation paper a view was taken that if the aspect of Bonython test was assumed to be part of England and Wales law, the issue would be then as to whether the body of knowledge or experience was acceptable with regards to reliability in the courts as opposed to relevant community experts. Publication of the consultation paper resulted to confirmation of existence of common law reliability test by a Court of Appeal based in Reed as regards expert evidence that is scientific in nature. But it is worth noting that the court did not disregard the well established standing of there being no any enhanced reliability test of this type of evidence (Broughton (2010). There has also been recognition that the common low reliability for evidence which are scientific in nature exists in Weller which saw the Court of Appeal referring to a trial judge’s function in determination of to whether there was sufficiently reliable basis for giving the expert evidence. Through consultation papers the view taken has been that the reliability requirement associated with admissibility test of common law is insufficiently robust, which is a reflection of a kind of Laissez-faire approach with regards to admissibility of expert evidence in England and Wales (Henderson and others, 2010). As seen previously, the Court of Appeal stand is that the requirement is satisfied where the field of expertise is well established such that it can pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability. Lame Horse fire The Lame Horse fire is a good example in which fire investigation was undertaken with a clear explanation of what could have happened being give. This fire incident happened in December 2009 at 1 am in a nightclub on 9 Kuybyshev Street in Khromaya Loshad in Russia. The approximate number of people who were in the club at the time of incident was put at 300, with 150 of them losing their lives while about 160 were reported to have been injured a good number of which succumbing to the injuries sustained while undergoing treatment. A spark from fireworks which made the ceiling and will twig covering to be set on fire as reported to be the cause of the fire. The electrical wiring system was destroyed as the fire spread to the walls resulting to failure of the lighting system. When the announcer alerted the people they made attempt to move out but in the process, the interior decorations caught fire resulting to the room being filled with smoke. In the initial stages of evacuation some of the people made their way out via the rear exit. The huge intake of air contributed significantly in a huge fire tube being developed in the club’s hall and this resulted to a further spread of the fire. The fire resulted to fumes and smoke overtaking the air, and this resulted to panic leading to a stampede of the people towards the exit. One eye witness reported that one leaf of nightclub’s double doors was seal shut and also the people were not aware the backdoor exit that was located behind the emergency lighting and had no emergency lighting. This was a pointer that the management had not put the necessary measures in place just in case of a fire incident. The requirement of having signs which should be easily seen by occupants and indicating the emergency door had not been provided. The fact that the back door was not available for escape during the fire incident is an indicator that there was no adequate exit means for the occupants. Considering that the number of occupants was more than 60 and the area of the floor it was necessary to have two exits available but this was contravened. The lack of two exits farther made the distance of travel before accessing the exit door to increase where some of the occupants had to travel whole length of hall. Hypothesis testing In fire investigation just like in much other scientific investigation, hypothesis testing is involved. This process involves derivation of propositions concerning an observable group of events through use of acceptable scientific principles, and then by investigation through observation data regarding the group of events it will be established if the hypothesis is acceptable or should be rejected. Since hypothesis testing is used to distinguish scientific method inquiry from non-scientific method, and because of the scientific method being required in the consequent inferences which forms the basis of the admissible expert testimony. Hypothesis testing deserves to be considered seriously irrespective of whether it was not one of the court’s enumerated factors. The basic technique used in testing hypothesis is something that has been used for decades. References 2SCR 9, (1994). 10f (Canadian Supreme Court. 38 SASR 45. (1984) Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766. R (Doughty) v Ely Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 522 (Admin) Robb (1991) 93 Cr App R 161, 164, where Bingham LJ said that the opinion evidence of an amateur psychologist would be inadmissible. Henderson and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1269, [2010] 2 Cr App R 24 at [207] and [208] (medical experts) and Weller [2010] EWCA Crim 1085 at [49] (experts on DNA). EWCA Civ 1028, [2006] 4 All ER 1276. EWCA Civ 1028, [2006] 4 All ER 1276 at [102]. EWCA (2009) Civ 107 at [67] and [68]. 38 SASR (1984). 45, 47. Broughton (2010) EWCA Crim 549 at [32]. Supreme Court in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579”. Henderson and others [2010] EWCA Crim 1269, [2010] 2 Cr App R 24 at [206] Read More