Criminal Litigation Case Management

The inclusion of expert evidence in civil and trial has increased remarkably to encompass, for example, modern and innovative scientific procedures and related assessment reports. This paper critically examines how courts have influenced expert evidence at trial.
Common law traditions require that expert witnesses are only sought with the permission of the court and that the principal obligation of the experts is to remain impartial to the court during the course of their submissions. The obligations and conduct of expert witnesses are well stated in both the Practice Direction 35 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35, with CPR Part 35.3 specifically indicating that: experts are duty-bound to assist the judicial process on the issues within the scope of their respective professions. The obligation surpasses any duty to the party from whom such a professional has received briefing or who is responsible for their earnings (Gans 353).
In addition, Practice Direction 35.2 also indicates that expert evidence should be the impartial outcome of the expert who is free from the duress caused by the long-drawn and challenging litigation procedures. However, the fact that there are two different categories of experts raises the controversy of impartiality at trial. As Sonenshein and Fitzpatrick (14) noted, an expert with clear directions to provide evidence at trial and another expert whose evidence is basically advisory may have clearly delineated mandates. However, the provisions of CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 normally apply in factual evidence provision rather than giving opinion evidence at trial.
Expert evidence in court processes is regarded as having the potential to shade more light on issues which are beyond the understanding of conventional fact-finding process. However, members of the court are sometimes ill-equipped to tell whether expert