Expert evidence accountability

new developments and challenges.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-224
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Law and Medicine
Volume19
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011

Cite this

@article{3ccd1995a77d4a4ab8e32642747e7c43,
title = "Expert evidence accountability: new developments and challenges.",
abstract = "A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.",
author = "Ian Freckelton",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "209--224",
journal = "Journal of Law and Medicine",
issn = "1320-159X",
publisher = "Thomson Reuters (Prous Science)",
number = "2",

}

Expert evidence accountability : new developments and challenges. / Freckelton, Ian.

In: Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 2, 12.2011, p. 209-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert evidence accountability

T2 - new developments and challenges.

AU - Freckelton, Ian

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.

AB - A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859381876&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Editorial

VL - 19

SP - 209

EP - 224

JO - Journal of Law and Medicine

JF - Journal of Law and Medicine

SN - 1320-159X

IS - 2

ER -