Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh, 1953 SC 34 SLT 54 Court of Session (Scotland)
Citation: Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh, 1953 SC 34 SLT 54 Court of Session (Scotland)
Rule of thumb: How are expert witnesses expected to present evidence to the Court? They are supposed to explain the scientific & technical basis of their discipline to show how they have arrived at their position, as if they were giving a lecture on the subject, with the Court able to check & question the logic. They can also state what the customs/practices are in their area of trade & what customs/practices they follow. They are not allowed to state that it is impossible for their technical analysis to be wrong, or, that the customs followed is necessarily the law with these possibly being ‘gold standard’ customs which are not the law.
Judgment:
Expert evidence can be very useful in helping the outcome of case, but it is not the be-all and end-all – the evidence is assessed and then weighed in with the rest of the evidence. The particular facts of this case are not a great importance, but an important foundational point of evidence was established by the Court. The first point was that an expert witness should furnish the Judge and Jury with the theory of what has happened, and essentially educate them with the basics of the matter and state what they think may have happened, but allow the Judge and Jury to make their own mind up for themselves. The second point established was that if external publications were to be relied on by the expert, then these had to be lodged in full in Court, otherwise they could not be relied upon. The particular facts nonetheless were that the witness was an expert on the use of shock-waves and blasting operations for smashing things, and the Court held that the witness did not sufficiently inform the jury and Judge of the science behind the technology. The Court held that the underlying theory and issues were not presented so as to let the Judge make their own mind up – the expert witness basically told the Jury Judge what had happened and usurped their role, ‘expert witnesses are only required in order that certain facts can be assessed and understood in their specialist/scientific context... their duty is to furnish the judge or jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as to enable the Judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence... should not hinder the trier of fact's duty by telling them how to assess the evidence that they have heard’, Lord President Cooper
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.