Legal Dilemmas in the Use of 'Expert Medical Evidence' Concluded

• NCJ Number: 85196
• Journal: Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 14 Issue: 4 Dated: (June 1982) Pages: 158-167
• Author(s): V D Plueckhahn
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 21 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

This conclusion of the first part of a discussion of the use of expert medical evidence explores the use of the court-appointed medical expert in the adversary system, the use of such evidence in civil litigation, and the importance of simple and clear communication in such testimony.

Abstract

Since 1934 the Rules of the Supreme Court in England have provided for judges to sit with expert assessors or to appoint one or more court experts. The parties may cross-examine the court expert and call one expert witness in rebuttal. There are similar provisions for the court to appoint court experts or assessors in the Supreme Court Acts of the States and Territories of Australia. Since the parties in a case have the right to cross-examine the court-appointed expert witness and call expert witnesses in rebuttal, the appointment of a court expert in the adversary procedure only adds to the length and cost of litigation while raising the practical problems of selection and procedure for the appointment of appropriate court experts. In civil litigation, some form of medical testimony is required in all actions for personal injuries where the damages are not agreed upon. The new Rules of the High Court in England now prevent oral expert medical evidence being called except with leave of the court or where all parties agree. Upon an application for such leave, the court may direct that the substance of any expert evidence shall be presented in writing to the other parties to the action. This has the advantage of obviating the need for experts to be present at the trial (an expense) and enables the disputants to examine the expert evidence prior to the trial. At present, in Australia, a significant proportion of all trials depends upon oral testimony, and this makes it especially important that the words used by expert witnesses are simple and clear to those deciding the case. Twenty-four references are listed.