2014 ZAB Q1 “The best means of dealing with the problems associated with expert
evidence is the proper application of the present common law. This may
require a cultural shirt on the part of the courts, but not the introduction
of new legislation’. Discuss
2015 ZAB Q3 “In light of the Government’s rejection of the proposals in the Law
Commission’s Report on Expert Evidence (2011) the law will fail to
adequately address the problems associated with expert evidence.”
Discuss.
2015 Oct Q2 “Even though the law and practice have greatly improved, there are
further measures that must be taken to address the risks associated with
expert evidence.” Discuss.
2016 ZA Q3 “Whilst the Law Commission’s proposals have heralded significant
improvements to the law and practice concerning the admission and
presentation of expert evidence, the law remains incoherent and
unsatisfactory and therefore the risk of miscarriages of justice resulting
from the criminal justice system’s reliance on scientific evidence
continues to be as grave as ever.” Discuss.
2016 ZB Q2 “The law already provides sufficient safeguards as to the admissibility of
expert evidence in criminal proceedings. Any problems that do exist are
unlikely to be solved by the implementation of the Law Commission’s
proposal for a new reliability-based admissibility test or by the recent
amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules.” Discuss.
2016 Oct Q2 Can the new Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Direction deal
satisfactorily with the problems of expert evidence?
2017 ZA Q1 “Whilst much has been done to minimise the risk of wrongful conviction
arising from the provision of expert opinion, the risk remains enormous
and there is no reason to think it will decrease any further in the
foreseeable future.” Discuss.
2017 ZB Q1 ‘The risk of miscarriages of justice could be greatly reduced if the court
were to make greater use of s.78 PACE 1984 to exclude evidence
adduced by the prosecution.’ Discuss in relation to Expert evidence.
2018 ZA Q3 3. In light of the dangers of expert evidence, discuss
EITHER
(a)“No defendant should ever be convicted solely on the basis of expert
opinion, whether that be DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence or any
other field beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury.” Discuss.
OR
(b)“Expert evidence should never be admitted in relation to the credibility
or reliability of a complainant or defendant.” Discuss.
2018 ZB Q3 “The courts continue to admit novel fields of expertise too freely and to
allow expert opinion to be adduced with insufficient explanation of the
expert’s basis for reaching specific conclusions.” Discuss.
2018 Oct “Partly on account of the demonstrable unreliability of eye witness
identification testimony, the criminal justice system has become
increasingly dependent on expert testimony, which is perceived as
relatively objective. Unfortunately, the weaknesses of expert testimony
are just as problematic, if not more so. Whereas the law has done a very
good job of ameliorating the dangers associated with eye witness
identification testimony, it has not done enough to address the dangers
associated with expert evidence.” Discuss.
, 2019 ZA Q4 “The law is finally getting to grips with the challenges posed by expert
evidence.” Discuss.
2019 ZB Q3 “The existing law on the admissibility of expert evidence is satisfactory,
but unfortunately insufficient use is made of it by the courts, who, quite
wrongly, seem happy for the jury to make their own minds up about its
probative value.” Discuss.
2019 Oct Q4 “The courts put too much faith in the capacity of the jury to evaluate
expert opinion. This is an area of law where judicial warnings to the jury
are no substitute for restrictions on the admissibility of evidence and
greater restrictions as to its admissibility are required.” Discuss.
2020 ZA Q3 “The new Criminal Procedure Rules on expert evidence have made a
major improvement to the previous situation, where such evidence was
too freely admitted by the courts. Of course, there remains a chance that
unreliable expert opinion will be admitted into evidence, just as there is
with any other kind of evidence. And there remains a risk of both
wrongful conviction and wrongful acquittal as a result. But the risks in
relation to expert opinion evidence have been minimised so far as
possible and there is nothing more to be done.” Discuss.
2020 ZB Q1 “The courts are slowly getting to grips with challenges posed by expert
evidence but the law in this area remains unsatisfactory and in urgent
need of reform.” Discuss.
2020 Oct Q3 “The risks associated with expert evidence are no greater than with any
other category of evidence, and are best addressed with detailed
instructions to the jury. The suggestion that expert evidence should be
made subject to some kind of special admissibility test, or that any other
statutory reform is required, is entirely misguided.” Discuss.
Intro
The use of expect opinion and admissibility of science in English court is not been
devised by “act ex abrupto”, but notably it has been developed over the last 239
evidence is the proper application of the present common law. This may
require a cultural shirt on the part of the courts, but not the introduction
of new legislation’. Discuss
2015 ZAB Q3 “In light of the Government’s rejection of the proposals in the Law
Commission’s Report on Expert Evidence (2011) the law will fail to
adequately address the problems associated with expert evidence.”
Discuss.
2015 Oct Q2 “Even though the law and practice have greatly improved, there are
further measures that must be taken to address the risks associated with
expert evidence.” Discuss.
2016 ZA Q3 “Whilst the Law Commission’s proposals have heralded significant
improvements to the law and practice concerning the admission and
presentation of expert evidence, the law remains incoherent and
unsatisfactory and therefore the risk of miscarriages of justice resulting
from the criminal justice system’s reliance on scientific evidence
continues to be as grave as ever.” Discuss.
2016 ZB Q2 “The law already provides sufficient safeguards as to the admissibility of
expert evidence in criminal proceedings. Any problems that do exist are
unlikely to be solved by the implementation of the Law Commission’s
proposal for a new reliability-based admissibility test or by the recent
amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules.” Discuss.
2016 Oct Q2 Can the new Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Direction deal
satisfactorily with the problems of expert evidence?
2017 ZA Q1 “Whilst much has been done to minimise the risk of wrongful conviction
arising from the provision of expert opinion, the risk remains enormous
and there is no reason to think it will decrease any further in the
foreseeable future.” Discuss.
2017 ZB Q1 ‘The risk of miscarriages of justice could be greatly reduced if the court
were to make greater use of s.78 PACE 1984 to exclude evidence
adduced by the prosecution.’ Discuss in relation to Expert evidence.
2018 ZA Q3 3. In light of the dangers of expert evidence, discuss
EITHER
(a)“No defendant should ever be convicted solely on the basis of expert
opinion, whether that be DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence or any
other field beyond the ordinary knowledge of the jury.” Discuss.
OR
(b)“Expert evidence should never be admitted in relation to the credibility
or reliability of a complainant or defendant.” Discuss.
2018 ZB Q3 “The courts continue to admit novel fields of expertise too freely and to
allow expert opinion to be adduced with insufficient explanation of the
expert’s basis for reaching specific conclusions.” Discuss.
2018 Oct “Partly on account of the demonstrable unreliability of eye witness
identification testimony, the criminal justice system has become
increasingly dependent on expert testimony, which is perceived as
relatively objective. Unfortunately, the weaknesses of expert testimony
are just as problematic, if not more so. Whereas the law has done a very
good job of ameliorating the dangers associated with eye witness
identification testimony, it has not done enough to address the dangers
associated with expert evidence.” Discuss.
, 2019 ZA Q4 “The law is finally getting to grips with the challenges posed by expert
evidence.” Discuss.
2019 ZB Q3 “The existing law on the admissibility of expert evidence is satisfactory,
but unfortunately insufficient use is made of it by the courts, who, quite
wrongly, seem happy for the jury to make their own minds up about its
probative value.” Discuss.
2019 Oct Q4 “The courts put too much faith in the capacity of the jury to evaluate
expert opinion. This is an area of law where judicial warnings to the jury
are no substitute for restrictions on the admissibility of evidence and
greater restrictions as to its admissibility are required.” Discuss.
2020 ZA Q3 “The new Criminal Procedure Rules on expert evidence have made a
major improvement to the previous situation, where such evidence was
too freely admitted by the courts. Of course, there remains a chance that
unreliable expert opinion will be admitted into evidence, just as there is
with any other kind of evidence. And there remains a risk of both
wrongful conviction and wrongful acquittal as a result. But the risks in
relation to expert opinion evidence have been minimised so far as
possible and there is nothing more to be done.” Discuss.
2020 ZB Q1 “The courts are slowly getting to grips with challenges posed by expert
evidence but the law in this area remains unsatisfactory and in urgent
need of reform.” Discuss.
2020 Oct Q3 “The risks associated with expert evidence are no greater than with any
other category of evidence, and are best addressed with detailed
instructions to the jury. The suggestion that expert evidence should be
made subject to some kind of special admissibility test, or that any other
statutory reform is required, is entirely misguided.” Discuss.
Intro
The use of expect opinion and admissibility of science in English court is not been
devised by “act ex abrupto”, but notably it has been developed over the last 239
