Week 11: Opinion Evidence - LAWS13010: Evidence and Proof

Introduction

• Instructor: Anthony Maranac
• Week 11: Last week of substantive material before review week.
• Focus: Opinion evidence, a key area of evidence law.

Overview of Opinion Evidence

• Definition: Based on interpretation/inference founded on facts.
  • Not just describing facts but interpreting their meaning.
  • Generally, it's the court's role to interpret facts.
  • Witnesses deliver facts, and the court constructs a narrative.

Types of Opinion Evidence

1. Non-Expert Opinion Evidence (Lay Opinion Evidence):

   • Given by individuals without particular expertise.
   • Usually limited to what they observed using their senses.
   • Courts allow some level of interpretation to convey observations.
     • Examples: "I saw my car in the car park." vs. detailed factual description.
   • Generally inadmissible unless necessary to understand observation.
     • Relevant cases: Lithgow and Jackson.
       • Examples: Age, sobriety, speed, time, distance, health, emotional state.

2. Expert Opinion Evidence:

   • Given by individuals with recognized expertise.
   • Based on study or experience allowing them to draw inferences beyond common understanding.
   • Courts use experts to interpret complex facts.
   • Relevant case: Buckley v. Thomas (1554)
     • Law reaches out to other areas of knowledge for expert advice.

Determining an Expert

• Criteria:
  1. Body of Knowledge: Must be organized and reliable.
     • Example: Osland v. The Crown – Battered Wife Syndrome accepted as psychology field.
  2. Recognition: The individual must be recognized as an expert within that body.
     • Example: R. v. Harris (1997) – Aboriginal tracker recognized as an expert due to practical expertise.
• Expert Witness Role:
  • Interpret facts accurately based on knowledge.
  • Must explain how conclusions are drawn for the court's understanding.
  • Example: R. v. Bugmy (1948) – Expert opinion invalidated due to lack of key facts.

Rules for Expert Opinion Evidence

• Limitations:
  • Cannot give opinions on questions of law, except for foreign law interpretation.
  • Court/jury can accept, reject, or partially accept expert opinions.
  • Conflicting expert opinions do not automatically imply reasonable doubt.
    • Example: Chamberlain Case
• Ultimate Issue Rule:
  • Experts should not give opinions on the ultimate legal question.
  • Doubtful if this rule is strictly applied today.
  • High Court suggests it is not a rigid rule.
  • Example: High Court’s statement in 1989.

Expert Witness Reports (Statutory Rules)

• Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) in Queensland:
  • Experts provide reports instead of oral evidence in chief.
  • Reports are disclosed to all parties before the trial.
  • Experts can be cross-examined on the report.
  • If experts disagree, courts may direct them to meet to resolve disagreements.

Conclusion

• Summary:
  • Distinction between opinion and direct evidence.
  • Types of opinion evidence and their admissibility.
  • Identification and role of expert witnesses.
  • Court’s handling of expert opinions and related rules.
  • Review of substantive material over the last 11 weeks.
• Next Week: Review and application session.