英语论文网

osts and duration of civil cases and make justice accessible to all.

The Woolf Report [8] 1996(Access to Justice) deals with Expert Evidence in Chapter 13. Lord Woolf, with the objective of reducing the costs of legal action to make it accessible to all, offered some recommendations. In relation to Expert evidence, Lord Woolf’s main recommendations are, the use of Single Experts for expert evidence wherever possible,( and if it is felt that a Single Joint Expert (SJE) cannot be used, to indicate why), a joint investigation and a single report (indicating areas of disagreement that cannot be resolved), some guidelines about admissibility of the evidence, and includes a suggestion to provide training (not compulsory) and material for the expert witnesses. These were pertaining to civil cases but the principle of Single Joint Expert could be applied equally to co-defendants in a Criminal case. The recommendation of using a SJE invoked a lot of debate, mostly against this recommendation.

The Criminal Procedure Rules [9] Crim PR 2005 Part 33 refers to Expert Evidence and to the use of a Single Joint Expert in Rules 33.7 to 33.9

Duties of an Expert Witness are laid out in Crim PR rule 33.2 whereby, it is stated that an “Expert’s duty to the court consists of helping the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his expertise, that this duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he receives instructions or by whom he is paid and that this duty includes an obligation to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement”.

This is also seen in the CPR rule 35.3 where the guidelines are very similar to that of an expert witness laid out in the Crim PR.

Rule 33.7 of the Crim PR relates to the Court’s power to direct that evidence is to be given by a SJE:

“(1)Where more than one defendant wants to introduce expert evidence on an issue at trial, the court may direct that the evidence on that issue is to be given by one expert only.

(2)Where the co-defendants cannot agree who should be the expert, the court may –

(a)select the expert from a list prepared or identified by them; or

(b)direct that the expert be selected in another way.”

Rule 33.8 refers to instructions to a single joint expert and deals with the guidelines regarding the interaction with co-defendants and the payment of fees and expenses and the court’s remit in these areas, including its power to limit expenses and fees for the expert.

Rule 33.9 specified the Court’s power to vary requirements to extend a time limit and under certain circumstances, allow the introduction of expert evidence ‘which omits a detail required by this Part.”

Single Joint Experts are different from Agreed Experts in that both parties do not engage an Agreed Expert, but usually the claimant engages them and the defendant ‘agrees’ to the use of this expert, in accordance to existing pre-action protocols. In this case, the defendant has very limited rights to the ‘agreed’ expert and the contents of the agreed expert’s written reports would not be available to the defendant as they would be bound by litigation privilege. This is particularly true if the claimant chose not to rely on the ev