Evidence of Opinion, Experts Opinions

The general rule is that the opinions of witnesses are not admissible. Witnesses are normally confined to stating facts that they have perceived. It is the role of the court to form any opinions which need to be formed, not the role of the witness. There are two important exceptions to the general rule however. These occur in cases where the court lacks the witness's competence to form an opinion on a particular issue whether through lack of direct knowledge or through lack of expertise.

As regards non expert witnesses, in civil proceedings the Civil Evidence Act 1972 section 3(2) allows the witness to convey facts that he has personally perceived in terms of his opinion. The position in criminal cases is on the whole identical. Examples of opinion statements that are usually admissible include statements about the speed of a car involved in an accident, or the identification of persons, places or things. These types of statements will generally be admissible as long as a proper appraisal of the facts does not call for any special expertise.

The only significant distinction between the rules in civil and criminal cases is that the witness in a criminal case will have his statement be judged inadmissible if it goes to an opinion on an ultimate issue. Thus if the issue was an offence of drink driving his opinion on the level of inebriation of the person charged would not be admissible.

The other exception to the main rule is the statements of experts. Where the court is asked to determine issues that are so far removed from the court's experience, expert opinion on those issues is generally admissible.

The general rule is that the prosecution is obliged to disclose expert evidence, along with evidence of facts to the defence, for the purposes of natural justice. There is generally no reciprocal duty on the defence for summary cases.

For Crown Court cases the position is governed by the Crown Court (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1987, made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) S. 81. This stipulates that any party proposing to rely on expert evidence is required to provide the other side with a written statement of that expert's findings and opinion. The other side may further request written details of any information relied on by the expert in giving their opinion. If these rules are not adhered to, the side wishing to rely on the opinion must seek the court's leave to admit it.

The expert report may be relied on in court even if the maker is not to give oral evidence by virtue of S.30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, yet this requires leave form the court. In considering whether to permit such a report, the court will consider the relevance of the report's contents, the reason why the maker cannot give oral evidence, and the unfairness caused to the accused in admitting it etc. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 S.20 allows for similar rules of court to be made for summary cases.

The areas in which expert evidence is admissible will usually be those in the medical field, there is often a fine line between those issues that do call for expert's opinion, and those that do not.

If an issue requires the opinion evidence of an expert, only a suitably qualified expert can give it. This does not necessarily mean that they have to be in possession of formal qualifications. However, it will not be easy to satisfy a judge that a witness is an expert in a field if s/he lacks formal qualifications.

Invariably an expert's opinion will be based on the facts of the case being considered in court and on experience and information obtained from their expertise. The facts of the case in which the expert's opinion is sought must be proved by admissible evidence, which may be given by the expert, or some other witness, e.g., a scientist may have carried out routine tests, which are then interpreted by an "expert". The scientist must give evidence of the tests and the results recorded, whilst expert opinion evidence is then given about the interpretation of those results.

The responsibilities of expert witnesses and the Courts have admonished those that approach their task in a less than prepared manner.

In Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning the court stated that an expert witness carries out a lot of responsibility because their evidence is afforded special respect and weight, particularly by a jury. An expert must approach the case in which they are giving their opinion seriously, and expect to be strongly censured if they don't.

The case of National Justice Compania Noviera v Prudential Assurance added that as well as giving independent and unbiased evidence, an expert should tell the court if they do not have experience of a certain area being questioned on, or that they have insufficient information on which to base a properly researched conclusion.

Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.

---