The court considered the proper approach to expert evidence when viewed alongside other evidence: Wilson J said ‘It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact-finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant thereto . . Mr Tam, for the Secretary of State, argues that decisions as to the credibility of an account are to be taken by the judicial fact-finder and that, in their reports, experts, whether in relation to medical matters or to in-country circumstances, cannot usurp the fact-finder’s function in assessing credibility. I agree. What, however, they can offer, is a factual context in which it may be necessary for the fact-finder to survey the allegations placed before him; and such context may prove a crucial aid to the decision whether to not to accept the truth of them. What the fact-finder does at his peril is to reach a conclusion by reference only to the appellant’s evidence and then, if it be negative, to ask whether the conclusion should be shifted by the expert evidence.’
Judges:
Wilson J, Ward and Buxton LJJ
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 367
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jakto Transport Ltd. v Derek Hall CA 9-Nov-2005
The claimant alleged injury from use of a torque wrench, and succeeded. The employer appealed.
Held: Though the appeal failed, the judge should have been careful not to consider the expert’s evidence separately, and not first making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Litigation Practice
Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.224247