◄Previous: 2.5 Hearsay

# 3 Duties and responsibilities of an expert

Historically some experts appear, knowingly or unknowingly, to have been influenced by the party calling them, tending to give evidence that favours the party that is calling and (often) paying them. This seems very much in contradiction with the assumption that experts assist a court in finding a scientific or ‘correct’ answer. Steps have been taken to address the problem, but it has not been entirely solved.

◄Contents►Next: 3.1 Hired guns and bias

- 1 The ‘Ikarian Reefer’ [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68.
- 2 Dawkins v Lord Rokeby [1873] LR 8 QB 255, 263.
- 3 Taylor v SFO [1999] 2 AC 177 at 208.
- 4 Darker v CC W Midland Police [2001] 1 AC 435 at 461.
- 5 Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 HL at 698.
- 6 Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13.
- 7 Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615.
- 8 Hall v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 [67, 85].
- 9 Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] QB 462, CA.

OpenLearn - Expert evidence and forensic science in the courtroom
Except for third party materials and otherwise, this content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence, full copyright detail can be found in the acknowledgements section. Please see full copyright statement for details.