Expert Evidence In Criminal Law

2196 Words9 Pages
The day to day implementation of expert evidence on people still takes place in law, and in some cases without any sufficient evidence against these people. The purpose of this essay is to find the rules of the expert’s evidence opinions in criminal law and how the experts can present the evidencein any case. What is the procedure of the judge which can accept the expert witness opinion or to test the evidence before admitting it to the court. Recognising the issues which have happened in the past due to expert witness evidence without any sufficient proof and whether it is real evidence or margin evidence. Consequently, a lot of people areaffected by the law and causing some people to enter jail without evidence against them. In this essay…show more content…
However, to assess the reliability of expert evidence there are special rules which are required as a factors for bearing on admissibility. So, there are four conditions in the UK to accept the evidence of the expert in the criminal court of law,also in regards to experts these procedures are produced in common law. Most importantly, the new recommendationfor expert opinion evidence is that this new framework should include an evidentiary reliability limb relating to matters such as assistance, relevant expertise, impartiality and evidentiary reliability. Assistance should be provided by the court for information that can be obtained outside of a judge and jury in knowledge and experience, so if the facts are established, the judge and jury can create their own conclusions without the expert evidence help, so the expert evidence opinion will not be important.Also,the evidence which is given to the court should be clear and help to build up the conclusion and not disturb it. The judgment of the court of appeal has suggested that the evidence of expert cannot be acceptable if unnecessary, it is, however. One expert evidence necessary only in the sense that must provide useful information which could be outside the judge and jury of their experience and knowledge of…show more content…
Sally Clark is a mother of two sons, she is 35 years old. Both of her sons died, the first child who died was namedChristopher and he was less than 3 months old and the reason for his death were natural reasons. In the next year the second child died his name was Harry and he was 2 months old. The doctor had some doubts regarding the child’s death, so the Home Office decided to make the post mortem for the victim of child to find out the reasons of this death. Then, on the 9th November 1999, the Home Office convicted Sally Clark because she killed her son. Also they looked to the first child’s death because it raised suspicions from the doctor, so some weeks later the police arrested Sally Clark on the suspicion of the murder of her two sons. However, Sally Clark tried out at Chester Crown Court. In this case there were no witnesses against the Sally Clark on her actions and to accuse her. The highly qualified medical experts were called by the prosecution and defence and their provided evidence against her. The court called the experts to look at the available medical evidence which they are provided with autopsy report of the both of deaths to prove that the either by shaking or smothering. When the each child died, Sally Clark the only person who was with him and this point which can consider as evidence against her, so again the experts have been called by the defence because the

More about Expert Evidence In Criminal Law

Open Document