![]() ![]() This is particularly so where the facts upon which the opinion is based do not accord with ![]() You should bear in mind that if, having given the matter careful consideration, you do not accept the evidence of the, you do not have to act upon it. The nature and effect of a series of financial transactions the properties of a particular drug and its effects the mechanicalĬondition of a truck, etc, as the case may be]. The expert evidence is before you as part of all the evidence to assist you in determining … [ set out the particular aspect(s), for example, the mental condition of the accused whether the accused’s act was voluntary The experience and knowledge of the average lay person. Of their experience, training and study, yet each can still be an expert qualified to give an opinion where that opinion isīased on that witness's specialised knowledge.Įxpert evidence is admitted to provide you with … information and an opinion on a particular topic which is within the witness's expertise, but which is likely to be outside ![]() Experts can differ in the level and degree It also depends on the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion wasīased and the skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given. The value of any expert opinion very much depends on the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to Other witnesses may speak only as to facts, that is, what they saw or heard, andĪre not permitted to express their opinions. Unlike other witnesses, a witness with such specialised knowledge may express an opinion on matters within An expert witness is a person who has specialised knowledge based on their training, In this case, have been called as expert witnesses. The case does indicate that careful directions need to be given to the jury about expert evidence especially However, there was no majority decision in respect of whether there was a category of expert evidence that a juryĬould not resolve: see Velevski v The Queen at. The method by which fingerprint evidence is admitted is discussed in JP v DPP (NSW) NSWSC 1669 at ff.Īs to the role of the jury in relation to expert evidence: see Velevski v The Queen HCA 4 where there is a discussion as to when it is open to a jury to make a determination between conflicting expertĮvidence. The “prosecutor’s fallacy” is discussed in R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317 R v Keir NSWCCA 30 and cf Keir v R NSWCCA 149. Percentage where a frequency ratio had also been given and where the relationship between the two figures had been explained. Carmichael, the Supreme Court affirmed a District Court’s decision not to admit expert testimony on tire marks and treads because there was “no indication in the record that other experts in the industry use ’s particular approach or that tire experts normally make the very fine distinctions necessary to support his conclusions.As to the admissibility of expert evidence, see generally: Pt 3.3 Evidence Act 1995 and note the effect of s 60 of the Act see also HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414 Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 at – Wood v R (2012) 84 NSWLR 581 Honeysett v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 122 at – Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 at Taub v R 95 NSWLR 388 at ff Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW annotations to ff Uniform Evidence Law ff and New Law of Evidence at ff.Īs to DNA evidence: see Aytugrul v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 170 at –, where it was held that it was not erroneous to direct a jury on the basis of an exclusion (a) that the “expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue ” (b) that “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data ” (c) that “the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods ” and (d) that “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” For example, in Kumho Tire Co. The Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 sets out the following requirements for expert testimony to be admissible, however. The subject will usually be technical or scientific, such as ballistics, forensics, or medical. An opinion stated during a trial or deposition (testimony under oath before trial) by an expert witness on a subject relevant to a lawsuit or a criminal case. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |