The use of expert opinion evidence in criminal proceedings: an updated framework
The 2012 amendments to the Evidence Act2 “significantly broadened the admissibility criteria for expert evidence”;3 at the same time, the judicial discretion to deny admissibility of relevant expert opinion evidence was also introduced. This article considers the key developments pre- and post-amend...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3437 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5395/viewcontent/9298__2021__SAL_Prac_27_The_Use_of_Expert_Evidence_in_Criminal_Proceedings__Published_on_21_September_2021___1_.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The 2012 amendments to the Evidence Act2 “significantly broadened the admissibility criteria for expert evidence”;3 at the same time, the judicial discretion to deny admissibility of relevant expert opinion evidence was also introduced. This article considers the key developments pre- and post-amendments, and in doing so provides an updated framework for prosecutors and defence counsel alike to admit and challenge expert opinion evidence in criminal proceedings. Since it complements earlier articles in this series on similar fact4 and hearsay evidence,5 readers are assumed to be broadly familiar with the features of the Evidence Act, such as its admissibility paradigm, the distinction between general and specific relevancy provisions, and the limits placed by s 2(2) on invoking common law rules of evidence. |
|---|