The application of the adversary system to the presentation of expert evidence is considered. Cases are quoted in which it is thought the system not only confused the process of criminal justice but also caused considerable hardship to the accused. Alternative systems are discussed including the possibility of pre-trial consultation between experts. A cautious welcome is given to recent legislation encouraging such a practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ShawS. (1976) The law and the expert witness. Proc. R. Soc. Med.69, 83–9.
2.
CaplanL. (1979) The expert witness. Med-Leg. J.47, 124–36.
3.
Per Lord Cooper in Davis v. Edinburgh Magistrates1953 SC 34.
4.
HavardJ. (1983) Legislation is likely to cause more difficulties than it resolves. J. Med. Ethics9, 18–20.
5.
Preece v. H. M. Advocate [1981] Crim LR 783–5.
6.
7.
R. v. Abrol (1982) The Times, 14 July, p. 3; (1983) 12 July, p. 2; (1983) 27 October, p. 3.
8.
BrownlieA. R. (1982) Expert evidence in the light ofPreece v. H.M. Advocate. Med. Sci. Law22, 237–44.
9.
LawtonL. J. (1980) The limitations of expert scientific evidence. J. Forens. Sci. Soc.20, 237–42.
10.
GeeD. J. (1980) Medical evidence in court. J. Forens. Sci. Soc.20, 73–9.
11.
MillerT. H. (1983) Non-verbal communications in expert testimony. J. Forens. Sci.28, 523–7.
12.
BrownlieR. (1983) The role of the expert witness. Med.-Leg. J.51, 85–95.
13.
R. v. Arthur (1981) The Times, 6 November, pp. 1, 12.
14.
OrmrodR. (1982) Scientific evidence in the judicial process. Bull R. Coll. Path.40, 2–5.
15.
Civil Evidence Act1972, Subsections 2(3).
16.
MasonJ. K. (1978) Comparison of medico-legal systems in Scotland and Scandinavia. Juridical Rev.23, 198–208.
17.
NapleyD. (1984) Defend the accused not the expert witness. The Guardian, 19 March p. 9.
18.
HurdD. (1983) Criminal evidence of both sides (1983)The Times, 22 August, Correspondence.
19.
KennedyL. (1984) The rectification of miscarriages of justice. J. Law Soc. Scot.29, 351.
