A Police Constable’s very detailed analysis of video evidence in a case made him an ad hoc expert on it.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ said: ‘The phrase ‘expert ad hoc’ seeks to put witnesses like Detective Parsons and PC Fitzpatrick into the traditional category of those qualified to give expert opinion. Whether or not the tag is appropriate, we are clearly of the view that PC Fitzpatrick had ‘special knowledge that the Court did not possess’ . . PC Fitzpatrick had acquired the knowledge by lengthy and studious application to material which was itself admissible evidence. To afford the jury the time and facilities to conduct the same research would be utterly impracticable. Accordingly, it was in our judgment legitimate to allow the officer to assist the jury by pointing to what he asserted was happening in the crowded scenes on the film. He was open to cross-examination, and the jury, after proper direction and warnings, were free either to accept or reject his assertions.’
Judges:
Lord Taylor of Gosforth CJ
Citations:
Independent 07-Apr-1995, Times 07-Apr-1995, Gazette 03-May-1995, [1995] 2 Cr App R 333
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) CACD 7-Oct-2002
The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not . .
Cited – Phipps v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another PC 27-Jun-2012
phipps_dppPC2012
(Jamaica) The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. He complained that he had been prejudiced because the jury were told that he had been produced from custody, and one of his witnesses was produced in court in chains, thus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86386