Concurrent Expert Evidence

Concurrent Expert Evidence

Introduction

This paper intends to demonstrate an understanding of the concurrent expert evidence in the trials. The main focus of this paper is to determine if the concurrent expert evidence can be employed in the criminal jury trials. Further, it discusses the potential conditions and circumstances under which it shall be used and advantages of conducting expert evidence based trials. In addition to this, it explores the subject to have deep rooted insight and understanding of the concurrent expert evidence adverse effects.

This study shall provide information that there is no absolute strategy to exclude biasness of expert. However, there are recommendations that shall be employed for the mitigation of biasness. Overall, it is considered that usage of Expert evidence have been very useful in all types of trial in New South Wales, thus it can be assumed that it shall be beneficial in criminal jury trials as well.

Discussion

Concurrent expert evidence, which is also known as hot tubbing, has a long history in Australia from the time period of 1970. Rhijn reports that concurrent expert evidence is widely employed medical negligence cases and also in the Land Environment Court. Further, if the judge approves then this may be employed in various kinds of expert disputes of civil cases in New South Wales. However, the main issue to be discussed here is that to what extent concurrent expert evidence can be used in Australia in criminal trial with jury. This may pose a danger and a kind of threat since experts can easily say anything that is subversive or inadmissible in all ways.

If we thoroughly analyse the major provisions of S 56 Civil Procedure Act (2005), it is quite evident that concurrent evidence serves a vital function in the overall management of any case; whether be civil or criminal. Hence, in order to ensure a smooth flow and through analysis of concurrent expert evidence; the provisions and precedents under S56 Civil Procedure Act (2005) should be considered and implemented. Approximately in each common law jurisdiction in the last thirty years a critical and in depth examination of the civil justice processes has been conducted. Although other issues have been addressed and responses developed, but it has been brought into notice that in the case of criminal trials the concern of expert's integrity is very essential.

The bottom line of this debate is if there shall be much strict legislative guidance as to what is specialised knowledge and the circumstances in which some people can never be taken to have such knowledge. In New South Wales, regarding specialised knowledge there is no legislative guidance. Undeniably, if anyone is an expert then it shall depend on the area in question. However, a chance of considerable risk prevails in allowing anyone to give his opinions as evidence (something they would otherwise not be able to do) in court on the basis they have no professional qualification or substantial expertise. To have a better insight, an example can be quoted here, ...