Expert Opinion as Crucial Evidence in Australian Evidentiary Rules
Added on 2023-06-12
14 Pages4746 Words310 Views
|
|
|
Running head: EVIDENCE LAW
Evidence Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
Evidence Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1EVIDENCE LAW
According to the rules of evidence in Australia, the standard for establishing a fact must
be proved based on the balance of probabilities in case of civil proceedings. In case of criminal
proceedings, facts must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. As per the evidentiary rules,
information must be placed before a court for enabling the court to determine an issue. These
rules usually influence how a party must prove his or her case1. Generally, in order a party must
persuade the court of a fact, it is important that adequate evidence is adduced before the court.
While adducing such evidence, the party must ensure how to adduce such evidence of the fact,
whether such admissible is admissible, and how much significance is attached to the evidence
adduced.
Such admissibility of evidence in any proceeding is subjected to compliance with the
admissibility rule and the interpretation that is made regarding such evidence by the presiding
judge. Amongst the type of evidences, expert evidence plays an essential role in any criminal and
civil proceedings. Expert opinion is crucial as evidence as it is reasoned conclusion that has been
derived from a specialized knowledge of the experts2. This essay entails the significance of
expert opinions as crucial evidence and that they have more knowledge about the matter in issue
than the court. Their opinion is considered as a crucial evidence as they possess specialized
knowledge about the matter in issue, thus, forming a reliable source of evidence.
An expert opinion is always admissible as a reliable source of information in the court
that can overturn any decision of the court. This is because they are qualified, experienced and
skilled in their respective fields possessing adequate knowledge that is beyond the knowledge of
the judge. For instances, in medical cases, medical experts are summoned to provide expert
opinion about the matter in issue, if it involves any question related to the medical field.
1 Heydon, John Dyson, and Sir Rupert Cross. Cross on evidence. LexisNexis Australia, 2015.
2 Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown. The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.
According to the rules of evidence in Australia, the standard for establishing a fact must
be proved based on the balance of probabilities in case of civil proceedings. In case of criminal
proceedings, facts must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. As per the evidentiary rules,
information must be placed before a court for enabling the court to determine an issue. These
rules usually influence how a party must prove his or her case1. Generally, in order a party must
persuade the court of a fact, it is important that adequate evidence is adduced before the court.
While adducing such evidence, the party must ensure how to adduce such evidence of the fact,
whether such admissible is admissible, and how much significance is attached to the evidence
adduced.
Such admissibility of evidence in any proceeding is subjected to compliance with the
admissibility rule and the interpretation that is made regarding such evidence by the presiding
judge. Amongst the type of evidences, expert evidence plays an essential role in any criminal and
civil proceedings. Expert opinion is crucial as evidence as it is reasoned conclusion that has been
derived from a specialized knowledge of the experts2. This essay entails the significance of
expert opinions as crucial evidence and that they have more knowledge about the matter in issue
than the court. Their opinion is considered as a crucial evidence as they possess specialized
knowledge about the matter in issue, thus, forming a reliable source of evidence.
An expert opinion is always admissible as a reliable source of information in the court
that can overturn any decision of the court. This is because they are qualified, experienced and
skilled in their respective fields possessing adequate knowledge that is beyond the knowledge of
the judge. For instances, in medical cases, medical experts are summoned to provide expert
opinion about the matter in issue, if it involves any question related to the medical field.
1 Heydon, John Dyson, and Sir Rupert Cross. Cross on evidence. LexisNexis Australia, 2015.
2 Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown. The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.
2EVIDENCE LAW
Similarly, in criminal proceedings, handwriting experts, chemists, forensic experts are called to
adduce evidence as they possess sufficient knowledge in the respective fields and a judge does
not possess this knowledge, as his knowledge is confined to legal knowledge and reasoning.
Similarly in any matter that is in dispute, and it involves legal reasoning and knowledge, any
expert opinion related to legal matter may not be admissible3. The opinion of experts is
admissible only when it is necessary to establish factual assumptions and requires the experts to
interpret their reasoning process which forms the rationale for such decision.
However, the Commonwealth of Australia enacted the Uniform Evidence Legislation,
which laid down a statutory framework regarding the admissibility of expert opinion as crucial
evidence in the court. According to the legal framework, the admissibility of expert opinion
necessitates that the opinion provided by the expert must be relevant to the case. In other words,
if such opinion of the expert is to be accepted by the court, it must have a rational impact either
directly or indirectly on the evaluation of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue within
the legal proceedings4. Hence, it is essential that the expert is able to prove the factual basis or
reasoning that is used to come to a conclusion otherwise the opinion provided by such experts
shall not be rendered as relevant and shall not be admissible in the court of law. For instance, an
expert opinion regarding slipperiness is based on the assumption of a wooden surface shall be
considered as completely irrelevant when the evidence in the disputed matter unambiguously
establishes that the plaintiff has slipped on a concrete floor.
3 Hale, Sandra, et al. "The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments." Interpreting 19.1 (2017):
69-96.
4 Brodsky, Stanley L., and Ekaterina Pivovarova. "The credibility of witnesses." The Witness Stand and Lawrence S.
Wrightsman, Jr.. Springer, New York, NY, 2016. 41-52.
Similarly, in criminal proceedings, handwriting experts, chemists, forensic experts are called to
adduce evidence as they possess sufficient knowledge in the respective fields and a judge does
not possess this knowledge, as his knowledge is confined to legal knowledge and reasoning.
Similarly in any matter that is in dispute, and it involves legal reasoning and knowledge, any
expert opinion related to legal matter may not be admissible3. The opinion of experts is
admissible only when it is necessary to establish factual assumptions and requires the experts to
interpret their reasoning process which forms the rationale for such decision.
However, the Commonwealth of Australia enacted the Uniform Evidence Legislation,
which laid down a statutory framework regarding the admissibility of expert opinion as crucial
evidence in the court. According to the legal framework, the admissibility of expert opinion
necessitates that the opinion provided by the expert must be relevant to the case. In other words,
if such opinion of the expert is to be accepted by the court, it must have a rational impact either
directly or indirectly on the evaluation of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue within
the legal proceedings4. Hence, it is essential that the expert is able to prove the factual basis or
reasoning that is used to come to a conclusion otherwise the opinion provided by such experts
shall not be rendered as relevant and shall not be admissible in the court of law. For instance, an
expert opinion regarding slipperiness is based on the assumption of a wooden surface shall be
considered as completely irrelevant when the evidence in the disputed matter unambiguously
establishes that the plaintiff has slipped on a concrete floor.
3 Hale, Sandra, et al. "The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments." Interpreting 19.1 (2017):
69-96.
4 Brodsky, Stanley L., and Ekaterina Pivovarova. "The credibility of witnesses." The Witness Stand and Lawrence S.
Wrightsman, Jr.. Springer, New York, NY, 2016. 41-52.
3EVIDENCE LAW
Further, another instance when the expert opinion may not be admissible in the court
when the trial judge exercises his discretionary power and determines that the ‘probative value’
of such opinion might be unfairly prejudicial or confusing/misleading or it might result or
cause undue waste of time. Under the common law, it has been stated that any opinion evidence
provided by the experts shall be excluded unless the factual bases upon which the opinion is
provided is established by other evidence5. In Makita case, the court established a ‘basis rule’
according to which the experts must provide facts, assumptions as well the reasoning process
that contributes to the inference that the experts draw using its skills and expertise.
In order to make any expert opinions admissible to the court, it is mandatory that the
expert provides a detailed explanation about how their specialized knowledge applies to the
observed facts to establish the opinion submitted. For establishing this, the expert must establish
a connection between specialized knowledge and opinion of the witness. The court usually
considers the reliability of the expert witness based on the experience, training and education,
memberships, affiliations, etc. Although the opinion of an expert is not binding upon the court,
the duty of an expert witness is to provide the court with necessary information relating to its
expertise to conclude, thus, enabling the court to form a judgment after perusal of such
information6.
According to the knowledge and views of Catherine (2017), the experts play a better role
and can produce correct evidence related to the case as he has the grasp of the subject matter in
particular as compared to the judge. It was noticed and observed that the experts put all their
effort by going through the matter of the case, summarizing the facts, details and assumptions of
the case based on which the appropriate or suitable decisions will be taken by the Court. In case
5 Anderson, John. Uniform evidence law. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation, 2016.
6 Bronstein, Daniel A. Law for the expert witness. CRC Press, 2016.
Further, another instance when the expert opinion may not be admissible in the court
when the trial judge exercises his discretionary power and determines that the ‘probative value’
of such opinion might be unfairly prejudicial or confusing/misleading or it might result or
cause undue waste of time. Under the common law, it has been stated that any opinion evidence
provided by the experts shall be excluded unless the factual bases upon which the opinion is
provided is established by other evidence5. In Makita case, the court established a ‘basis rule’
according to which the experts must provide facts, assumptions as well the reasoning process
that contributes to the inference that the experts draw using its skills and expertise.
In order to make any expert opinions admissible to the court, it is mandatory that the
expert provides a detailed explanation about how their specialized knowledge applies to the
observed facts to establish the opinion submitted. For establishing this, the expert must establish
a connection between specialized knowledge and opinion of the witness. The court usually
considers the reliability of the expert witness based on the experience, training and education,
memberships, affiliations, etc. Although the opinion of an expert is not binding upon the court,
the duty of an expert witness is to provide the court with necessary information relating to its
expertise to conclude, thus, enabling the court to form a judgment after perusal of such
information6.
According to the knowledge and views of Catherine (2017), the experts play a better role
and can produce correct evidence related to the case as he has the grasp of the subject matter in
particular as compared to the judge. It was noticed and observed that the experts put all their
effort by going through the matter of the case, summarizing the facts, details and assumptions of
the case based on which the appropriate or suitable decisions will be taken by the Court. In case
5 Anderson, John. Uniform evidence law. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation, 2016.
6 Bronstein, Daniel A. Law for the expert witness. CRC Press, 2016.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents