摘要:本文是一篇留学生法庭审理论文,鉴于对意见和传闻证据可受理性的一般规则管理的不灵活, 已经有必要以法律的形式来发展专家证人以处理这些规则的例外情况。然而有一些规定,法官认为会影响审判的公平性时还可以排除证据。
rt and each other party and to furnish the other parties with the opportunity to inspect any records and equipment used. The court may refuse to admit expert evidence if a party has not complied with this rule.
Whilst the new rule has been introduced only two days prior to this
assignment being written, the case of Writtle v. DPP [15] 16, is an example of a decision to refuse leave to the defence to adduce expert evidence on account of a failure to comply with the provisions of what is now rule 33.4(1)(a) and (b). The defence served expert evidence after conclusion of prosecution case and sought to raise an entirely new issue. The Divisional Court decided that magistrates’ court had been entitled to rule as inadmissible expert evidence that the defence had sought to admit after the close of the prosecution's case.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 c. 19 section 23(2) authorises the judge to rule additional evidence inadmissible for a variety of reasons.
In R v Jason Lee Revill [17] & others, counsel for Revill argued (unsuccessfully) that use of a voice recording, from an interview without consent, for voice analysis, offends against Article 6, of the Human Rights Act [18] .
What might “prejudice a fair trial”?
Expert evidence which might prejudice a fair trial, may be considered under three headings [19] 20: unreliable evidence, unreliable expert and unnecessary expert.
(i)Unreliable evidence
English Law requires expert opinion to be drawn from an “established body of evidence” [21] 22: Cross & Tapper on Evidence: “so long as the field is sufficiently well established to pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability, then no advanced test of admissibility should be applied [23] ”
(ii) Unqualified expert
The individual proffering the opinion must have the necessary expertise: A witness may qualify as an expert through academic study, vocational experience [24] , and, rarely, extensive “private” study [25] .
If the qualifications of a witness are in question, evidence may be heard on the voir dire [26] , however, most lawyers and judges lack the adequate scientific background to argue or decide the admissibility of expert testimony [27] and directions for a voir dire should be exercised sparingly [28] . A judge can, during a trial, remove a witness's 'expert' status and limit his evidence to factual matters [29] . The evidence of a discredited expert, is still admissible, but goes to weight of evidence [30] .
In R. v. Robb [31] , Bingham L.J. stated “A defendant cannot fairly be asked to meet evidence of opinion given by a quack, a charlatan or an enthusiastic amateur.”
Expert evidence was excluded in the case of R. v Edwards [32] where it was found that a drug advisor’s evidence which amounted to opinion evidence founded on hearsay, with no statistical or forensic basis, was inadmissible.
(iii) Unnecessary expert
The third category is whether the subject matter is something on which the jury needs advice [33] .
R. v. Turner [34] provides: “An expert’s opinion is admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience or knowledge of a judge or jury.” This leaves the Judge with much “discretion” (see reference to R v. Land [35] and R. v. Cuddeford [36] in “Conclusion
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。