Expert Opinion Evidence Flashcards
General rule for exclusion
Only facts observed not opinions. However an expert can state opinion on matters calling it special knowledge.
Kelso v HM advocate
Appropriate for a trial judge to refuse a witness to express a witness a view of participation as that was a matter for the court to decide.
Galletly v laird
LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE
Opinion evidence MUST not be expressed on the ultimate issue before the court. This is intended to avoid usurpation of the function of the court. not permissible to ask whether books and other materials are obscene
Hendry v HM advocate
LIMITATINS OF EXPERT EVIDENCE Not permissible to ask whether cause of death established beyond all reasonable doubt.
ingram v macari
what if witness adopts language of legal test. sherrif material disprove or corrupt.
galbraith v hm adv
Not for expert witness to express whether the accused suffers from DIM RESP. they should testify as t the accussed mental state does it meet the threashold of DIM RESP is decided by the JURY
DAVIE V MAG OF ED
the court is not bound to accept the evidence of a witness. THE FINDER IN FACT HAS TO REACH ULTIMATE DECISION. cORE EXPERT SHOULD EXPRESS A KEY FACT.
“their duty is to furnish the judge / jury with the necessary scientific criteria for the testing of their concl”
HM V GRIMMOND
EXPERT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN ON RELIABILITY OR CRED OF EVIDENCD OF WITNESS UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT THAT WITNESS
not allowed to bring forward physcological evidence to discredit witness
HM V A
EXPERT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN ON RELIABILITY OR CRED OF EVIDENCD OF WITNESS UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT THAT WITNESS
L.mcphail
accused lead ecpert evidence suffer from false men sysmpton of illness not the cause
HM V RONALD
EXPERT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE GIVEN ON RELIABILITY OR CRED OF EVIDENCD OF WITNESS UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT THAT WITNESS
physchatric evidence of complainer personality disorder undermined
s.275 C 1995
attck the crd of complainant try and explain only in complaint
s. 1 only reference to sexual offences under s.288
s. 2 defines attacking the cred of witness
young v hm adv
admissibility and reliability of evidence:
case linkage analysis = inadmissible it fails the suffciancy test. no recognised studies/ results are inconstitent.
YOUNG CRITREA
EXPERT EVIDENCE MUST HAVE
- BE BASED ON A RECOGNISED AND DEVOLPED ACDEMIC DISCIPLINE
- PROCEED ON THEORIES WHICH HAVE BEEN TESTED
- BE FOUND TO HAVE A PRACTICAL AND MEASURABLE CONSEQUENSE
- FOLLLOW DEVEOLPED METHODOLGY OPEN TO POSSIBLE CHALLENGE
- PRODUCE A RESULT CAPBLE OF BEING ASSERTED AND GIVEN MORE OR LESS WIEGHT IN LIGHT OF ALL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FINDER OF FACT
Hewart v ed corp
specialities of expert evidence- NO DEFINE EXPERT.
ordinary council employees. report dangers = expert
hopes and larvey v hm adv
specialities of expert evidence- NO DEFINE EXPERT
poor recording @ centre of case. audio typist v. familiar was accepted as an expert. NO TECHNICAL QUALIFICATION RULE
white v hm
specialities of expert evidence- NO DEFINE EXPERTmember of drug squad was asked to whether the quantity of drungs found was personal or dealer quantity. L.Justice CLERK ROSS police man dealing with drugs on a daily basis CAN BE REGARDED AS AN EXPERT
specialities of expert evidence-
no define expert
extent to which materials the court can refer.
presence in court
davie v mag of ed
specialities of expert evidence- extent to which materials the court can refer:
judge can launch own exploration of material that the expert has has discussed but cannot bring up anything that was NOT referred to
wardlaw v bonnington castle
specialities of expert evidence- extent to which materials the court can refer
APPEAL ALLOWED.
judge found expert not referred to it in evidence
presence in court
court can reject well qualified experts
if they don’t have expertise APPLICABLE to the case
tiral judge erred by not telling the jury to ignore the 2 expert witnesses on court collusion- they were phoresic anthroplogists rather than exerts
HIGH COURT- credentials of expert should be scrutinised pre trial
