Source: https://bartfieldsforensic.co.uk/insights/news/expert-evidence-updated-part-19-criminal-procedure-rules-2015/
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 09:50:57
Document Index: 173276140

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 33', 'art 19']

Expert evidence - updated Part 19 Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 - Bartfields Forensic
Posted: 05 / 04 / 2020
Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 dealing with expert evidence in Crown Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in England & Wales has been updated with effect from 1 April 2019. For convenience the new materials are brought together in a single document here.
The Criminal Procedure Rules are in future to be referred to by the abbreviation CrimPR to distinguish them from the Civil Procedure Rules, see rule 2.3.(2).
Part 19 (Expert evidence) has been amended to include a new rule about an expert witness’ obligations to the court. At the same time the Criminal Procedure Rules as a whole have been rearranged – the new Part 19 dealing with expert evidence previously appeared as Part 33 of the 2014 edition of the rules.
A new Rule 19.9 (Expert evidence: Application to withhold evidence from another party), introduced from April 2019, deals with the unusual situation where one party thinks that it would be in the public interest to withhold information from another party, for example information about criminal investigatory techniques.
(b) when giving evidence in person, to draw the court’s attention to any question to which the answer would be outside the expert’s area or areas of expertise;
(c) to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement; and
(d) to disclose to the party for whom the expert’s evidence is commissioned anything —
(i) of which the expert is aware, and
(ii) of which that party, if aware of it, would be required to give notice under rule 19.3(3)(c).
(c) serve with the report notice of anything of which the party serving it is aware which might reasonably be thought capable of –
(i) undermining the reliability of the expert’s opinion, or
(ii) detracting from the credibility or impartiality of the expert;
(e) when the expert has based an opinion or inference on a representation of fact or opinion made by another person for the purposes of criminal proceedings (for example, as to the outcome of an examination, measurement, test or experiment) —
(i) identify the person who made that representation to the expert,
(ii) give the qualifications, relevant experience and accreditation of that person, and
(iii) certify that that person had personal knowledge of the matters stated in that representation;
Application to withhold information from another party
(1) This rule applies where —
(a) a party introduces expert evidence under rule 19.3(3);
(b) the evidence omits information which it otherwise might include because the party introducing it thinks that the information ought not to be revealed to another party; and
(c) the party introducing the evidence wants the court to decide whether it would be in the public interest to withhold that information.
(2) The party who wants to introduce the evidence must —
(a) apply for such a decision; and
(b) serve the application on —
(ii) the other party, but only to the extent that serving it would not reveal what the applicant thinks ought to be withheld.
(3) The application must —
(a) identify the information;
(b) explain why the applicant thinks that it would be in the public interest to withhold it; and
(c) omit from the part of the application that is served on the other party anything that would reveal what the applicant thinks out to be withheld.
(4) Where the applicant serves only part of the application on the other party, the applicant must —
(a) mark the other part, to show that it is only for the court; and
(b) in that other part, explain why the applicant has withheld it from the other party.
(a) direct the applicant to serve on the other party any part of the application which has been withheld;
(b) determine the application at a hearing or without a hearing.
(6) Any hearing of an application to which this rule applies —
(a) must be in private, unless the court otherwise directs; and
(b) if the court so directs, may be, wholly or in part, in the absence of the party from whom information has been withheld.
(7) At any hearing of an application to which this rule applies —
(a) the general rule is that the court must consider, in the following sequence —
(i) representations first by the applicant and then by the other party, in both parties’ presence, and then
(ii) further representations by the applicant, in the absence of the party from whom information has been withheld; but
(b) the court may direct other arrangements for the hearing.
Expert evidence – the Practice Directions
19A.7 To assist in the assessment described above, CrimPR 19.3(3)(c) requires a party who introduces expert evidence to give notice of anything of which that party is aware which might reasonably be thought capable of undermining the reliability of the expert’s opinion, or detracting from the credibility or impartiality of the expert; and CrimPR 19.2(3)(d) requires the expert to disclose to that party any such matter of which the expert is aware. Examples of matters that should be disclosed pursuant to those rules include (this is not a comprehensive list), both in relation to the expert and in relation to any corporation or other body with which the expert works, as an employee or in any other capacity:
(g) conviction of a criminal offence in circumstances that suggest;
(h) lack of accreditation or other commitment to prescribed standards where that might be expected;
19A.8 In a case in which an expert, or a corporation or body with which the expert works, has been criticised without a full investigation, for example by adverse comment in the course of a judgment, it would be reasonable to expect those criticised to supply information about the conduct and conclusions of any independent investigation into the incident, and to explain what steps, if any, have been taken to address the criticism.
19A.9 The rules require disclosure of that of which the expert, or the party who introduces the expert evidence, is aware. The rules do not require persistent or disproportionate enquiry, and courts will recognise that there may be occasions on which neither the expert nor the party has been made aware of criticism. Nevertheless, where matters ostensibly within the scope of the disclosure obligations come to the attention of the court without their disclosure by the party who introduces the evidence then that party, and the expert, should expect a searching examination of the circumstances by the court; and, subject to what emerges, the court may exercise its power under section 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or section 20 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to exclude the expert evidence.
Statements of understanding and declarations of truth in expert reports
19B.1 The statement and declaration required by CrimPR 19.4(j), (k) should be in the following terms, or in terms substantially the same as these:
‘I (name) DECLARE THAT:
1. I understand that my duty is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving independent assistance by way of objective, unbiased opinion on matters within my expertise, both in preparing reports and giving oral evidence. I understand that this duty overrides any obligation to the party by whom I am engaged or the person who has paid or is liable to pay me. I confirm that I have complied with and will continue to comply with that duty.
2. I confirm that I have not entered into any arrangement where the amount or payment of my fees is in any way dependent on the outcome of the case.
3. I know of no conflict of interest of any kind, other than any which I have disclosed in my report.
4. I do not consider that any interest which I have disclosed affects my suitability as an expert witness on any issues on which I have given evidence.
5. I will advise the party by whom I am instructed if, between the date of my report and the trial, there is any change in circumstances which affect my answers to points 3 and 4 above.
6. I have shown the sources of all information I have used.
7. I have exercised reasonable care and skill in order to be accurate and complete in preparing this report.
8. I have endeavoured to include in my report those matters, of which I have knowledge or of which I have been made aware, that might adversely affect the validity of my opinion. I have clearly stated any qualifications to my opinion.
9. I have not, without forming an independent view, included or excluded anything which has been suggested to me by others including my instructing lawyers.
10. I will notify those instructing me immediately and confirm in writing if for any reason my existing report requires any correction or qualification.
11. I understand that:
(a) my report will form the evidence to be given under oath or affirmation;
(b) the court may at any stage direct a discussion to take place between experts;
(c) the court may direct that, following a discussion between the experts, a statement should be prepared showing those issues which are agreed and those issues which are not agreed, together with the reasons;
(d) I may be required to attend court to be cross-examined on my report by a cross-examiner assisted by an expert;
(e) I am likely to be the subject of public adverse criticism by the judge if the Court concludes that I have not taken reasonable care in trying to meet the standards set out above.
12. I have read Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and I have complied with its requirements.
13. I confirm that I have acted in accordance with the code of practice or conduct for experts of my discipline, namely [identify the code].
14. [For Experts instructed by the Prosecution only] I confirm that I have read guidance contained in a booklet known as Disclosure: Experts’ Evidence and Unused Material which details my role and documents my responsibilities, in relation to revelation as an expert witness. I have followed the guidance and recognise the continuing nature of my responsibilities of disclosure. In accordance with my duties of disclosure, as documented in the guidance booklet, I confirm that:
(a) I have complied with my duties to record, retain and reveal material in accordance with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, as amended;
(b) I have compiled an Index of all material. I will ensure that the Index is updated in the event I am provided with or generate additional material;
(c) in the event my opinion changes on any material issue, I will inform the investigating officer, as soon as reasonably practicable and give reasons.
I confirm that the contents of this report are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make this report knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I would be liable for prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything which I know to be false or that I do not believe to be true.’
19C.1 To assist the court in the preparation of the case for trial, parties must consider, with their experts, at an early stage, whether there is likely to be any useful purpose in holding an experts’ discussion and, if so, when. Under CrimPR 19.6 such pre-trial discussions are not compulsory unless directed by the court. However, such a direction is listed in the magistrates’ courts Preparation for Effective Trial form and in the Crown Court Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing form as one to be given by default, and therefore the court can be expected to give such a direction in every case unless persuaded otherwise. Those standard directions include a timetable to which the parties must adhere unless it is varied.
19C.2 The purpose of discussions between experts is to agree and narrow issues and in particular to identify:
(a) the extent of the agreement between them;
(b) the points of and short reasons for any disagreement;
(c) action, if any, which may be taken to resolve any outstanding points of disagreement; and
(d) any further material issues not raised and the extent to which these issues are agreed.
19C.3 Where the experts are to meet, that meeting conveniently may be conducted by telephone conference or live link; and experts’ meetings always should be conducted by those means where that will avoid unnecessary delay and expense.
19C.4 Where the experts are to meet, the parties must discuss and if possible agree whether an agenda is necessary, and if so attempt to agree one that helps the experts to focus on the issues which need to be discussed. The agenda must not be in the form of leading questions or hostile in tone. The experts may not be required to avoid reaching agreement, or to defer reaching agreement, on any matter within the experts’ competence.
19C.5 If the legal representatives do attend:
(a) they should not normally intervene in the discussion, except to answer questions put to them by the experts or to advise on the law; and
(b) the experts may if they so wish hold part of their discussions in the absence of the legal representatives.
19C.6 A statement must be prepared by the experts dealing with paragraphs 19C.2(a) – (d) above. Individual copies of the statements must be signed or otherwise authenticated by the experts, in manuscript or by electronic means, at the conclusion of the discussion, or as soon as practicable thereafter, and in any event within 5 business days. Copies of the statements must be provided to the parties no later than 10 business days after signing.
19C.7 Experts must give their own opinions to assist the court and do not require the authority of the parties to sign a joint statement. The joint statement should include a brief re-statement that the experts recognise their duties, which should be in the following terms, or in terms substantially the same as these:
‘We each DECLARE THAT:
1. We individually here re-state the Expert’s Declaration contained in our respective reports that we understand our overriding duties to the court, have complied with them and will continue to do so.
2. We have neither jointly nor individually been instructed to, nor has it been suggested that we should, avoid reaching agreement, or defer reaching agreement, on any matter within our competence.’
19C.8 If an expert significantly alters an opinion, the joint statement must include a note or addendum by that expert explaining the change of opinion.