Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence in the UK Common Law - Case Study Example

Admissibility of Expert Opinion Evidence in the UK Common Law [Name] [Institution] [Date] Table of Contents Introduction 2 Analysis of the legal statement 3 Requirements of test for admissibility of a common law 5 Assistance 5 Appropriate expertise 6 Impartiality 6 Reliability of Evidence 7 Interrelationship among tests of admissibility 7 Difference between Opinion and Factual evidence 8 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction According to the legal practice in the United Kingdom, opinion by experts in the various fields is admissible as provided for within the jurisdiction of common law (Munday 2007).As a form of laissez-faire, the expert opinion is applicable in the process of legal practice as adequate evidence, with little emphasis on the reliability of the opinion as effective evidence that is worth the jury’s consideration.Evidence based on the opinion of the expert has, therefore, been referred to in seeking analysis and passing of verdicts in proceedings related to violation of legal provisions amounting to crime. Such evidence has also been applicable in retributive proceedings involving destitution of property. There has been a general feeling that although expert evidence is thoroughly sufficient, the notion of assumed analysis of the efficiency of the evidence is conceived to be largely undermining the objectivity of proceedings. There have been scenarios where expert evidence results in misleading of the jury, resulting in incorrect convictions. However, evidence based on opinion of experts if reliable gives appropriate pointers to the jury and makes the conviction proceedings more reliable. This essay is an in-depth analysis of the applicability and reliability of the admissibility of the expert opinion in the legal procedures, with insignificant emphasis on reliability of the evidence reliability as presented before the jury. Analysis of the legal statement Munday (2007) emphasizes that evidence derived from expert opinion can either be hypothetical or empirical in nature. The nature of the evidence has thus led to discussions on whether the jury could be held with contempt of abdication of their duties. The juries, for instance, have been reluctant in exercising their purposeful skills and authority in passing verdicts as a result of the notion that expert evidence derived from scientific justifications leads the jury members to dogmatically accept the suppositions of the evidence, with minimum or total lack of analysis of the truthfulness and objectivity of the report provided.The incapability of the jury to ascertain the validity of the expert’s report is increased by lack of understanding of the facts being presented in the report as the jury has not specialized in the field of technical know-how in question.Hypothetical expert reports also hinder the objectivity of the jury in ascertaining the case reports. Here, philosophical arguments from forensic experts are a viable illustration. It, therefore, necessitates for the legislation of the United Kingdom to seek alternative measures that will ensure objective evaluation of the expert opinion as submitted to the jury to ensure that the consensus of the jury is sufficiently informed and has the right to oppose or working accordance with the evidence after scrutiny of the facts (Munday 2007).This leads to the assumption that a report serving the purpose of evidence should not in any capacity whatsoever be admissible as sources of evidence when its pointers are not a justification of reliability. The increasing campaign for legislative allowance for the intervention of the jury in the reliability of the facts presented by the expert evidence works against the action of the inability to question the facts. The main reason for this stand is that there is a difference between expert and casual witnesses. The technical disposition of the expert witness puts them at a better place with regard to the quality and logic of the opinion they present before the jury as they are informed more than the jury members on the topic of scrutiny. The jury also lacks the relevant technical knowledge and education in the content areas addressed by the jury. This incapacitates the jury from determining the level to which they can rely on the evidence as provided by an expert. The jury is thus left with no option rather than accept the report or opinion of the expert, or the jury might prefer to use the assumptions that reflect a form of reliability in the opinion. This is the case when an expert has been invited to give an authentic report on scientific research to aid in the processing of evidence to be used in given court proceedings. Munday (2007) further asserts that the laissez-faire strategy has ascertained that there is no interference to the acceptance of the facts of evidence given by experts. However, a review of the cases whose verdicts have been passed with reference to the opinion of an expert have compromised justice. Therefore, the campaign is opposed to the ease with which the jury accepts the evidences, some of which are unclear to the jury, in most cases if they derive from science as a field. Requirements of test for admissibility of a common law These the defining aspects which determine whether there is substantial need for accepting the propositions of an expert’s report aboutthe case.In view of Munday (2007), requirements provide pointers on the effectiveness of admissibility of the evidence, and at times they prove that a report is unreliable and therefore should not be used in deciding the facts of affected parties in legal conflicts. These requirements are applicable in cases of common law, and their main application is in providing evidence of reliable opinion in violation of criminal legal provisions. Assistance The opinion of the expertis employed with intent to provide relevant information to the court. The information provided is assumed to be without the comfortable knowledge scope of the jury, both from education and experience. This is the case as ability of the judge(s) to access relevant information and draw informed assumption could render the opinion of the expert unimportant and irrelevant. Thisrequirement, therefore, implies that it is the responsibility of the expert to be accountable for providing information that is not within access to the jury if the facts of their evidence are to be adopted. The facts must also stand the test of being genuine accounts for the basis of drawing conclusions in passing verdicts. With reference to the judgment of the court of appeal, the expert’s opinion is unnecessary when it cannotbe effected. This carries the impression that for an evidence to be admissible then it must be necessary to the judge, and mandatorily offer insightful information into the case decision making which is not at the disposal of the judge. Appropriate expertise This requirement holds that any person who considers themselves an expert must therefore be knowledgeable in the appropriate field. This supposition implies that the expert must possess the skills and knowledge specific to the field of specialization by way of education and experience in order to offer invaluable information. This is the standard description of an expert in the United Kingdom. The admissibility of evidence relies on expertise rather than the channels of expertise acquisition. Current commentary by the judiciary reveals that the scale of measurement of expertise lacks standardization. It is a challenge therefore to illustrate possession of standard expertise. Other viewpoints on expertise include the argument that the form of expertise is specific to certain qualified individuals and not others, and the move towards generation of standards of expertise in given fields of science. Impartiality For one to be considered an expert with relevant skills, they must endeavor to meet objectivity in their evidence report. An expert can be trusted to give reliable evidence if their opinion is unbiased and objective reports of evidence. This requirement holds that an expert must not give evidence in favour of a given party whatsoever. The evidence ought to be independent of external forces, but rather logical opinion that does not identify with parties involved. With regard to the statements issued by the Court of Appeal in the UK, in situations where an expert faces a dilemma presented by conflicting interests, the objectivity of their evidence has been compromised and as such, their report should not be considered as valid evidence in drawing of conclusions. Impartiality as a requirement for the admissibility of common law has been taken up and incorporated into criminal law. Under the Criminal Procedural Law, rule 33.2 asserts that the expert is responsible for ascertaining the lack of biasness and presence of objectivity in their evidence. Reliability of Evidence This requirements expects that the opinion of evidence conceived by the expert has to meet the minimum levels of acceptability. This requirement has been applied with review to past cases which have been handled and the court of appeal has given the relevant provisions including a need for better establishment of expertise which goes beyond the normal levels of reliability and the need for a component of reliability in a test of admissibility, except one which has not undergone analysis in the UK. Interrelationship among tests of admissibility Of the four, limb one of admissibility of common law works to verify that the admission of evidence of the expert is invaluable and it can be useful to the judges in the process of seeking the most effective outcome of a case before them. The subsequent limbs work towards justifying the application of the evidence in providing a solution to a crisis by determining that the evidence indeed meets the minimum requirement of overall reliability. Difference between Opinion and Factual evidence Depending on the kind of knowledge that an expert avails to the jury, the evidence they give could either be opinion or factual (Munday 2007). Opinion evidence results when an expert is invited to provide evidence depending on what they know as witnesses. Alternatively, an expert could be invited by the jury to provide expert and factual information with regard to a case, resulting in factual evidence. Information concerning the operation of machinery as well as reading and interpretation of the results are instances in which an expert could be called upon to provide factual evidence. Conclusion Expert knowledge as discussed can be a vital source of evidence to judges attempting to solve a conflict presented to them. However, for the evidence provided to be valuable to the jury, it must have such features as reliability, impartiality, objectivity and illustration of relevant expertise. Lack of objectivity and expertise are examples of the causes of the need for implementation of new legal provisions intended to ensure that expert evidence is free of biasness while it adequately informs the jury on aspects of specialization that could not be in the scope of knowledge and experience possessed by the jury. In this order, the evidence has to be necessary for it to be reliable to the jury. Therefore, depending on the case to be determined and the kind of information needed for evidence, expert opinion could be reliable or unnecessary. References Munday, R. J. C. 2007. Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More