Wednesday, 17 November 2010


Useful overview on lawyers in court
The Goudge Report (2008)
much broader implications for civil and criminal justice in Ontario. It sets out
fertile ground for objections to expert evidence. In the context of criticizing the
pathologist, Dr. Smith, the Inquiry identified 10 criticisms, all of which can be
relevant in any case:
(i) he failed to understand his role was not to support the crown (or party
retaining him) (this goes to bias and may affect both weight and
(ii) he failed to adequately prepare for court (this would be relevant to the
weight of his evidence);
(iii) he overstated his knowledge in a particular area (this may be relevant to
his qualification as an expert or to weight);
(iv) he gave anecdotal evidence which was inappropriately unscientific (this
goes primarily to the weight of his evidence);
(v) he failed to give a balanced view of the evidence and was dogmatic and
was unduly certain (this again goes more to weight);
(vi) he was unprofessional and gave unwarranted criticism of other
professionals (this again goes more to weight);
(vii) he testified on matters outside his area of expertise (this should be the
subject of an immediate objection);
(viii) he gave opinions which were speculative, unsubstantiated and not based
on (pathology) findings (this goes to weight);
(ix) he used loose and unscientific language (again, this goes to weight); and
(x) he lacked candour and honesty (again, this goes to weight).
on flaws in Ontario's forensic pathology system had

No comments:

Post a Comment