Bowman, Regina v: CACD 2 Mar 2006

The defendant appealed his conviction of murder saying that evidence of other pathologists undermined the evidence given by similar experts for the crown.
Held: The court took the opportunity to give guidance on the provision of expert evidence to criminal trials. There had been several expert pathologists, some of whom were available to give evidence at trial but had not been called. They did not undermine the evidence given by the principal crown pathology expert: ‘this appeal is in reality an attempt to re-open all the arguments deployed at trial. We are not to be taken as saying that in all cases where fresh expert evidence is called to the same effect as was called at trial an appeal can never succeed. But in our judgment this court will be astute to ensure that in such appeals the trial process is not thereby subverted. ‘ The court set out several additional necessary inclusions in an expert’s report: ‘1. Details of the expert’s academic and professional qualifications, experience and accreditation relevant to the opinions expressed in the report and the range and extent of the expertise and any limitations upon the expertise.
2. A statement setting out the substance of all the instructions received (with written or oral), questions upon which an opinion is sought, the materials provided and considered, and the documents, statements, evidence, information or assumptions which are material to the opinions expressed or upon which those opinions are based.
3. Information relating to who has carried out measurements, examinations, tests etc and the methodology used, and whether or not such measurements etc were carried out under the expert’s supervision.
4. Where there is a range of opinion in the matters dealt with in the report a summary of the range of opinion and the reasons for the opinion given. In this connection any material facts or matters which detract from the expert’s opinions and any points which should fairly be made against any opinions expressed should be set out.
5. Relevant extracts of literature or any other material which might assist the court.
6. A statement to the effect that the expert has complied with his/her duty to the court to provide independent assistance by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his or her expertise and an acknowledgment that the expert will inform all parties and where appropriate the court in the event that his/her opinion changes on any material issues.
7. Where on an exchange of experts’ reports matters arise which require a further or supplemental report the above guidelines should, of course, be complied with.’
[2006] EWCA Crim 417, Times 24-Mar-2006
England and Wales
CitedKai-Whitewind, Regina v CACD 3-May-2005
The defendant was convicted of infanticide and murder. The experts differed as to the cause of death. She appealed her conviction saying that the experts in effect cancelled each other out.
Held: Her appeal failed. The jury was entitled to . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Steven Martin) CACD 23-Jul-1996
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder wishing to bring in evidence of his diminished responsibility at the time of the offence.
Held: The evidence was admitted, but the conviction was upheld. The court took the opportunity to give . .
CitedNational Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
CitedRegina v Harris, Rockalan, Cherry, Faulder CACD 21-Jul-2005
The court gave guidance in respect of expert evidence given in criminal trials. The court made the following two points with regard to evidence of a subdural hematoma caused non-accidentally. First, a clinically observed coincidence of SDH, retinal . .
CitedKelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.239056