英语论文网

that basis.

For the second part, the introduction of Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong has offered the courts more control over the expert evidence, including measures to reduce the expert disagreement before the trial. The most common way for the court to narrow expert disagreement is to direct an expert meeting and joint report [29] , where the experts of both sides will meet before the trial and indicate clearly in the joint report the reason for their disagreement with each other. The direction is supported by Justice Wood that experts moderate their opposing views in the expert meeting, or even reach agreement on the controversial aspects of their expertise. [30] It is also noticed that the experts have a duty to attend this pre-trial meeting and conclude with a proper joint report, or otherwise, the defaulting expert would have breached paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct for Expert Witness. Furthermore, the court has an option to order the appointment of a “single joint expert” under Order 38, rule 4A of RHC. Under this scheme, parties may jointly choose the “single joint expert”, or the court can select from a list prepared by the parties or any manner as the court may direct. Although the use of single joint expert may allow the fact-finder to have a simpler and less-biased picture over the technical matter, it is stressed in the Woolf’s final report that the appointment of a single joint expert is mainly used to deal with the problem of “excessive and inappropriate use of experts” instead of bridging the differences of opinion between experts. [31]

As a result, it is believed that the direction of pre-trial expert meeting and joint report will be more useful to narrow the conflicting opinion between experts rather than the appointment of a single joint expert.

Conclusion

With increasing technological sophistication of issues in courts, it is no doubt that the expert witness is playing a more significant role in the judicial process. Unlike other witnesses, the expert witness has an overriding duty to the court to provide objective and unbiased opinion evidence. An absence of independence and objectivity on the part of the expert witness would be prejudicial to the court, and consequently lead to a devaluing role of the expert witness in the court proceedings. It is opined that the introduction of the code of conduct as well as the new rules under the Civil Justice Reform in Hong Kong have evolved new roles for the expert witness. By setting court expectations in respect of the expert evidence, the expert witness would strive to meet the high standards and adhere to their duties and responsibilities listed in the rules.

Despite the effort of the expert witness, I believe the concerted efforts by all streams of the judicial system are also vital to restore not only the credibility of the role of expert witness, but also public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

M. R. Damaska, ‘Evidence Law Adrift’ (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1997)

Mike Redmayne, ‘Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice’ (OUP, Oxford 2001)

Peter Murphy, ‘Murphy on Evidence’ (10th edn OUP, Oxford 2008)

Simon NM Young, ‘Hong Kong Evidence Casebook’ (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Hong Kong 2004)

ARTICLES & REPORTS

Charle