To be used in Court ?
Over the years I have produced reports, statements, and a very very small amount ever gets put infront of the court.
Now, my views are this
if i am approached either by the Defence or Prosecution It DOES NOT MATTER, I am independent and after all I am here for the COURT.
The amount of times I get told "we wont be using your report" I know exactly why ive found more damming evidence, Ive been told.
We are all here to find one thing the TRUTH nothing more nothing less.
So should the COURTS approach us
or our reports be forced to be submitted into court.
That's interesting for two reasons
Firstly, it's nice to see a fellow Leodiensian!
Secondly, I have provided many reports in respect of personal injury claims and they have been mainly civil, rather than criminal, in nature. The legal teams for both sides in a civil matter often issue joint instructions and there have been times when I have provided neutral evidence which I knew very well would go against the claimant. After all, I've been asked to evaluate the evidence and not favour either side. I have also provided expert evidence by one side or the other in criminal matters and, again, I have been absolutely fair in evaluating the evidence in a neutral manner and not favoured either prosecution or defence. It's a while since I've been involved with this, but I don't think that an expert is instructed in a criminal matter as a joint expert - though I'm perfectly happy to be corrected about this. If I'm right, I'd agree with the idea that a single expert should be instructed as that will reduce the cost of the trial. The evidence will be put before the Court and the Judge and jury will make of it what they will.
Mitch.
It all depends on which side of the fence you are on it a particular case.
If you are acting for the prosecution and find evidence on a computer that weakens the prosecution case then that evidence HAS to be disclosed to the defence who would no doubt call you if the prosecution didn't.
If you are acting for the defence and find evidence during an examination that supports the prosecution and weakens the defence then there is no obligation for that to be disclosed by the defence and you will not be called.
One example I can give is a murder case I was OIC in.
Man killed girl friend ( brutal and messy) and ended up partially using a diminshed responsibilty tack. The prosecution psych prepared a report disputing his claim to diminished responsibility. Defence had him examined by three psych's. First wasn't what they wanted so his report wasn't used. Second also disagreed with diminished responsibility so he wasn't used. Third agreed with diminished responsibility so he was the one they put in the witness box at Court. (Didn't do any good as defendant was convicted and got life)
I dont think we will ever get to a stage in this country where the defence will be forced to disclose evidence they have (but the prosecution dont) that is detrimental to their case. It is all about being seen to be fair to the defendant and the innocent until guilty principle. We have to prove their guilt but they don't have to help.
Further to the above case to show how far it can go , as I said the murder was brutal and we were not even allowed to show the jury the photographs of the scene or the victim incase it influenced them against the defendant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as your comment about "You are there for the Court" although I see what you mean I would disagree to a certain extent.
If you are approached by the defence you are exactly that - the defence witness - working for the defence and being paid for by the defence. It is not until you are in the Court and the judge or whatever accepts you as an expert witness in that particular case that you become an expert for the Court and therefore theoretically independant.
If its any consolation I have stood in the witness box many many times either not being allowed to say things that I know would convict or knowing that the defence know things that would convict their client but choose not to mention them. Can be very frustrating but hey, thats justice. D
Mitch, such a scenario would not be considered a defence! Would it be any better with a single joint expert? roll
http//
You are only there for the Court
1. Once your report has been disclosed
2. Once you step into the box
Your engagement leading subsequently to the production of a report, at first instance, is to advise your client regarding the merits of the case for or against the defendant. There is no legal requirement for it to be served if the client doesn't wish to reply upon it.
Many thanks to you all replying,
mark777
I understand fully, and see exactly what you mean. Justice rules eh.
BTW mark I was able to crack that zip passwords, dont know if ya got my email.
Now I got to do some Job hunting !!!! made redundant in two weeks !!!!!!!
Mitch
I totally sympathise with the point of view …
Something my father taught me, from an early age, when I asked why something had happened in a court case
"In England, you _won't_ necessarily get justice, you _will_ get the Law."
Occasionally the two will match up, but very often a lot less than we all would like. ?
"In England, you _won't_ necessarily get justice, you _will_ get the Law."
Occasionally the two will match up, but very often a lot less than we all would like. ?
What a cynical but completely correct view you have. I haven't heard it put so accurately before.
Cynical Steve