Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Preface
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- Introduction
- 1 General epistemological issues
- 2 Expert evidence as a special case for judicial assessment
- 3 Making sense of expert disagreement
- 4 Non-epistemological factors in determining the role of the expert
- 5 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts: the sixteenth to twentieth centuries
- 6 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts today
- 7 The effective management of bias
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998
- Appendix 2 Tables of pre-1800 civil cases involving expert evidence
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
6 - Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts today
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Preface
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- Introduction
- 1 General epistemological issues
- 2 Expert evidence as a special case for judicial assessment
- 3 Making sense of expert disagreement
- 4 Non-epistemological factors in determining the role of the expert
- 5 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts: the sixteenth to twentieth centuries
- 6 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts today
- 7 The effective management of bias
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998
- Appendix 2 Tables of pre-1800 civil cases involving expert evidence
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
6.1 Introduction
The previous chapter took us from the end of the fifteenth century through to the end of the twentieth century in considering the judicial assessment of expert evidence in the English civil courts. This journey looked at the range of expert roles that have existed historically in the civil courts (party expert witnesses, special juries, assessors and court experts), both under the several jurisdictions that existed prior to the Judicature Act 1873 (common law, equitable and civilian), and subsequently under the fused jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, whose procedure was governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court (‘RSC’). Our journey ended in 1998, on the eve of the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (‘CPR’), which came into force in April 1999. This chapter analyses the operational veritistic value of the expert roles provided for under Pt 35 of the CPR (party experts, single joint experts and assessors).
The CPR are intended to be ‘a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly’ (CPR r. 1.1). Implicit in this statement are five elements of the paradigmatic shift that was intended to distinguish the CPR from the RSC. First, it is ‘new’, and this implies a break with the RSC rather than a progression. Secondly, ‘code’ is a legal term of art, that carries with it a sense of self-containment and completeness that is not equally true of ‘rules’.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence , pp. 282 - 333Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
, ‘The New French Code of Civil Procedure (1975)', in , European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 49–68, pp. 56–9.Google Scholar
et al. (eds.), Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
, ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on EvidenceGoogle Scholar
, ‘Court Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly400–7.Google Scholar
, and , The Woolf Reforms in Practice: Freshfields Assess the Changing Landscape (London: Butterworths, 1999), p. 89.Google Scholar
, ‘Recent Australian Developments: A Response to Peter Heerey’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly396–99Google Scholar
, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 336.Google Scholar
, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), p. 31.Google Scholar
, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983), vol. V 32, s. 1367.Google Scholar
, A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
, ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly281–95, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , The Evidence of Children – The Law and the Psychology, 2nd edn (London: Blackstone, 1993), p. 270Google Scholar
, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 270.Google Scholar
, ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics345–59, 353.Google Scholar
, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 149Google Scholar
, ‘Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court’ (2001) 31 British Journal of Criminology266–79, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review98–105.Google Scholar
, Professionals and the Courts – A Handbook for Expert Witnesses (Birmingham: Venture Press, 1990).Google Scholar
and , Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999), pp. 45–58.Google Scholar
, Code of Guidance for Experts and Those Instructing Them, 2nd edn (London: Academy of Experts, 2001)Google Scholar
(ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
, ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present and Future’ (2002) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly341–456, 352Google Scholar
, ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in , , and (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70, p. 68.Google Scholar
, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.