Review of expert witnesses -- BBC website
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4317926.stm
This is an interesting development. I think we should be on the lookout for an opportunity to propose the LTI importer as a subject for review.
If you follow the link, there's a link on that page to an article written in 2003, "expert witnesses -- conflict of interest?". The first paragraph states:
"An expert witness is someone who has specialist knowledge in a field, who is independent of a legal case and who can assist a court to come to a just decision by expressing an accurate opinion based on all the available facts."
We think it's clear that the owner of the LTI import business must have a conflict of interest, and so will find difficulty in being independent.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 7th October 07:18
This is an interesting development. I think we should be on the lookout for an opportunity to propose the LTI importer as a subject for review.
If you follow the link, there's a link on that page to an article written in 2003, "expert witnesses -- conflict of interest?". The first paragraph states:
"An expert witness is someone who has specialist knowledge in a field, who is independent of a legal case and who can assist a court to come to a just decision by expressing an accurate opinion based on all the available facts."
We think it's clear that the owner of the LTI import business must have a conflict of interest, and so will find difficulty in being independent.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 7th October 07:18
Peter Ward said:
We think it's clear that the owner of the LTI import business must have a conflict of interest, and so will find difficulty in being independent.
I emailed the guy over a week ago regarding a flaw within his claim that panning errors are always captured; I’ve had nothing back. I will escalate this if I hear nothing by next weekend.
Technical expert or not, it’s not looking good for him.
As someone who has appeared as expert witness and had the accreditation to prove it as required in Germany then it really is about time that this situation was sorted.
The UK MUST have an officially accredited and proven register of OBJECTIVE expert witnesses who are able to give opinion, rather than simply report facts as is the case with normal witnesses.
I'm out of this game now hence no longer affects me, long story, but the concept that someone can be accepted as an expert simply on the basis that they look and sound like an expert is a disgrace.
Apply this test to the LTI bod.
Definition of an expert witness.
Qualities of an Expert
The one essential of all expert evidence is a frank statement by the expert of the limits of accuracy within which he is speaking, and a readiness to indicate, whether asked or not, what his evidence, does not prove, or suggest, as likely. Just as counsel is under an obligation to call the judges attention to points of law which are against his case, so the expert should be under an obligation to make sure that the court does not, unwittingly, use his evidence without realising its scientific limitations.
(Sir Roger Ormrod)
A summary of the necessary qualifications for an expert witness may be listed as follows:
1. Knowledge based upon proper training in the subject under review.
2. Humility in admitting when there is doubt.
3. Courage in desiring to establish the truth.
(Professor Francis Camps)
Plus as I said OBJECTIVITY.
Mr LTI scamera man falls short of all those tests.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 7th October 09:44
The UK MUST have an officially accredited and proven register of OBJECTIVE expert witnesses who are able to give opinion, rather than simply report facts as is the case with normal witnesses.
I'm out of this game now hence no longer affects me, long story, but the concept that someone can be accepted as an expert simply on the basis that they look and sound like an expert is a disgrace.
Apply this test to the LTI bod.
Definition of an expert witness.
Qualities of an Expert
The one essential of all expert evidence is a frank statement by the expert of the limits of accuracy within which he is speaking, and a readiness to indicate, whether asked or not, what his evidence, does not prove, or suggest, as likely. Just as counsel is under an obligation to call the judges attention to points of law which are against his case, so the expert should be under an obligation to make sure that the court does not, unwittingly, use his evidence without realising its scientific limitations.
(Sir Roger Ormrod)
A summary of the necessary qualifications for an expert witness may be listed as follows:
1. Knowledge based upon proper training in the subject under review.
2. Humility in admitting when there is doubt.
3. Courage in desiring to establish the truth.
(Professor Francis Camps)
Plus as I said OBJECTIVITY.
Mr LTI scamera man falls short of all those tests.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 7th October 09:44
smeggy said:
We think it's clear that the owner of the LTI import business must have a conflict of interest, and so will find difficulty in being independent.
I emailed the guy over a week ago regarding a flaw within his claim that panning errors are always captured; I’ve had nothing back. I will escalate this if I hear nothing by next weekend.
Technical expert or not, it’s not looking good for him.
Well done. Keep at the nasty weasel.
I thought the conflict of interest rules were already in place.
I remember reading of a quite a high profile 'slippage' case on Pepipoo about a case in Cardiff Crown court where the judges decided that Mr Garratt from the LTI importer was a fair expert witness. Further to that it was decided that he should be the only expert witness, and using an expert witness of the defence's choosing (a Dr no less) was not allowed...
I still think a lot of these cases are dealt with the courts as the 'easiest way to remove doubt' as oppose to any fait or common sense methodology.
These cases could be won however. If you used someone with a record like Nick Freeman as your solicitor, and an expert witness with regard to slippage, and you did it at the Magistrates court, I feel the external pressures would mean that you would most likely win as the case would be quietly dealt with as oppose to at a higher court which may set a precedent, and would cost the CPS thousands to lose.
I remember reading of a quite a high profile 'slippage' case on Pepipoo about a case in Cardiff Crown court where the judges decided that Mr Garratt from the LTI importer was a fair expert witness. Further to that it was decided that he should be the only expert witness, and using an expert witness of the defence's choosing (a Dr no less) was not allowed...
I still think a lot of these cases are dealt with the courts as the 'easiest way to remove doubt' as oppose to any fait or common sense methodology.
These cases could be won however. If you used someone with a record like Nick Freeman as your solicitor, and an expert witness with regard to slippage, and you did it at the Magistrates court, I feel the external pressures would mean that you would most likely win as the case would be quietly dealt with as oppose to at a higher court which may set a precedent, and would cost the CPS thousands to lose.
justinp1 said:
...These cases could be won however. If you used someone with a record like Nick Freeman as your solicitor, and an expert witness with regard to slippage, and you did it at the Magistrates court, I feel the external pressures would mean that you would most likely win as the case would be quietly dealt with as oppose to at a higher court which may set a precedent, and would cost the CPS thousands to lose.
You make it sound like someone has something to hide. I'm sure you're not suggesting the whole handheld laser thing is bent?
I also have some experience in the role of expert.
Some things that are clear to me, but that are not generally clear, is that the role expert, can be a nightmare.
1) It's a bit like junk in junk out. If the range of information to which you have is limited, it is often difficult to come to a conclusion other than that which was intended by the limiter.
2) Even if you have all the infomation that it is possible to aquire, sometimes, it's difficult to come to any conclusion. Despite this, it is often used as a reason to draw any conclusion required.
3) Even if a pertinent fact is clear in the name of expertise, the pertinent fact is commonly obscured by those with fox like cunning.
Edited to add;
That's justice for you!
>> Edited by dilbert on Friday 7th October 19:43
Some things that are clear to me, but that are not generally clear, is that the role expert, can be a nightmare.
1) It's a bit like junk in junk out. If the range of information to which you have is limited, it is often difficult to come to a conclusion other than that which was intended by the limiter.
2) Even if you have all the infomation that it is possible to aquire, sometimes, it's difficult to come to any conclusion. Despite this, it is often used as a reason to draw any conclusion required.
3) Even if a pertinent fact is clear in the name of expertise, the pertinent fact is commonly obscured by those with fox like cunning.
Edited to add;
That's justice for you!
>> Edited by dilbert on Friday 7th October 19:43
Peter Ward said:
justinp1 said:
...These cases could be won however. If you used someone with a record like Nick Freeman as your solicitor, and an expert witness with regard to slippage, and you did it at the Magistrates court, I feel the external pressures would mean that you would most likely win as the case would be quietly dealt with as oppose to at a higher court which may set a precedent, and would cost the CPS thousands to lose.
You make it sound like someone has something to hide. I'm sure you're not suggesting the whole handheld laser thing is bent?
I think if you watched my court case to see a PC provide information that he had never seen the ACPO guidelines which was the reason he had not used them, yet spookily remembers how well he could ascertain my speed at a half mile away and then target me from a quarter of a mile away with the device handheld of course I think you would agree.
You may also agree that it was farsical to accept that even though he never recorded when the laser was tested, he could remember from a year ago that he definately did it so it would be OK as long as he promised.
When he 'remembers' all this and the closing question is what colour my car was, which he had no idea... You would wonder how you win one of these cases! Or at least get the Judge to think over the case for more than 3 minutes...
Im not bitter
but ill help out anyone else in the same position! >> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 7th October 21:33
Although an extreme case I think the Professor Sir Roy Meadow situation highlights that there are issues with our current system of expert witnesses.
I have no doubt that the majority are exactly as described but there seems to be no easy way to argue that an expert witness is only "one point of view" which may be wrong in the view of another expert in the same field.
I have no doubt that the majority are exactly as described but there seems to be no easy way to argue that an expert witness is only "one point of view" which may be wrong in the view of another expert in the same field.
streaky said:
"Expert Witnesses" have always been bent. If they don't produce the required 'conclusion' they don't get used again.
As someone who has appeared as an Expert Witness, I take very grave offence at that remark - Streaky
Perhaps an exaggeration
However, they should be treated as prosecution witnesses.
I would add the most of the 'expert witnessing' I know of in my two particular areas of interest is not only inaccurate and dishonest, but blatantly so.
It would be perhaps more acceptable if the errors weren't always to the benefit of the prosecution.
Hollywood Wheels said:
I take very grave offence at that remark - Streaky
I do not believe that I have ever posted anything "grossly offensive" against any individual BiB. Indeed, if you would make the effort to read and understand my posts you would find that those where I rail against the police are directed predominately at the prevailing culture and occasionally highlight activities (sometimes those of unnamed BiB) that appear inconsistant with the original ideals of the police force and the expectations on them held by "Middle England". Read further and you will discover that my work in the past has involved me closely with the police and the "security services" and that this involvement continues today. You will also see that I have a number of friends who are police officers of senior (e.g. DCI to DCS) rank. Not exactly the sort of relationships that would lead or encourage me to be "grossly offensive".
Of course, anyone can be offended by anything. For example, I could find the words "Hollywood Wheels" to be grossly offensive ... but being a reasonable person, I do not.
Streaky
justinp1 said:
When he 'remembers' all this and the closing question is what colour my car was, which he had no idea... You would wonder how you win one of these cases! Or at least get the Judge to think over the case for more than 3 minutes...
Seriously? That sounds remarkably like perjury to me.
streaky said:
I take very grave offence at that remark - Streaky
Makes a change for you to be the one being offended Streaky, judging by some of the grossly offensive posts against BiB you put on here.....
I do not believe that I have ever posted anything "grossly offensive" against any individual BiB. Indeed, if you would make the effort to read and understand my posts you would find that those where I rail against the police are directed predominately at the prevailing culture and occasionally highlight activities (sometimes those of unnamed BiB) that appear inconsistant with the original ideals of the police force and the expectations on them held by "Middle England". Read further and you will discover that my work in the past has involved me closely with the police and the "security services" and that this involvement continues today. You will also see that I have a number of friends who are police officers of senior (e.g. DCI to DCS) rank. Not exactly the sort of relationships that would lead or encourage me to be "grossly offensive".
Of course, anyone can be offended by anything. For example, I could find the words "Hollywood Wheels" to be grossly offensive ... but being a reasonable person, I do not.
Streaky
Well said!!BliarOut said:
justinp1 said:
When he 'remembers' all this and the closing question is what colour my car was, which he had no idea... You would wonder how you win one of these cases! Or at least get the Judge to think over the case for more than 3 minutes...
Seriously? That sounds remarkably like perjury to me.
Seriously...
The case got silly basically. The ACPO guidelines were not followed as at the Magistrates court he had never (ever!) seen them. Instead of aiming the laser at the number plate (as that was too difficult at 400m) he aimed in front of the car, and let the car run onto it....
Slippage anyone?
But he had never heard of slippage as he had never read the guidelines... Yet, by the time of the Appeal not only was he an expert in the ACPO guidelines, and why in practice they do not need to be followed, he was sure that on the day he did not let my car run onto the laser beam he aimed at the front of the car.
What can you do? My barristers closing argument was that he obviously did not remember doing this as his answer in the Magistrates court was different. To this he did 'not recall' what he said before but definately remembers the exact point on my car he targeted and that he definately tested the device fully.
Of course in court you cant say someone is a liar, just prove that his memory may had been 'jogged' by the CPS brief into what exactly happened. After all of the facts he 'remembered' which helped his case, he didnt remember the colour of my bright yellow Tuscan!!??
Thus I have pretty much given up fighting my case. When facts are presented like that and thrown out within a few minutes of deliberation you know that whatever evidence was shown to that Judge it would not have worked...
>> Edited by justinp1 on Saturday 8th October 20:16
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff