Haoui v Regina: Expert Evidence Introduction
Expert evidence is an admissible testimony a professional provides in a criminal proceeding.The expert witness has a specialized knowledge beyond that of an average person, and other people may rely on this knowledge to form a legal opinion. This paper is a case study of Haoui v Regina [2008]. It focuses on the decision of the court of appeal regarding the admissability of an expert report in the case. The decision of the court was that late introduction of the expert report caused unfair prejudice against the appellant.
Facts of the case
At about 5 pm of 13th of May 2003, Mr. Abdali Khanefer drove his Toyota utility car from the driveway grounds of Frederick Rockdale Street. His intention was to proceed north by making a right-hand turn. A Honda Civic vehicle driven by the appellant was
…show more content…
One of the case law is Velevski v R [2002].Other case laws relied by the court are Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) and R v Basha (1989). Whitehorn v The Queen establishes the procedures the Crown has to follow to ensure a fair trial to the defendant (Haoui v Regina, 2008). The case law of R v Basha provided guidelines that the court had to use in admitting a late expert evidence. The court of appeal also used parliamentary statutes to come up with a decision on the admissability of the expert evidence. The statute relied upon is the Evidence Act of 1995. This statute guided the court on how to treat expert evidence that causes prejudice. The sections used are 136 and 137. Section 136 of the Evidence Act grants power to the court to limit the use of prejudicial evidence (Leggat, 2012). Additionally, s 137 allows the court to strike out evidence that will cause unfair prejudice to the
On 01-01-17 at 0023 hours I was monitoring the radio and heard that Officer Harrell #3441 and Officer Thebeau #8402 were involved in a vehicle pursuit in the area of Fair Oaks Avenue and Corson Street. I responded to the above location to assist. They advised responding units that the suspect was involved in a traffic collision on the eastbound 210 Freeway Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp.
One of the few purposes of the Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to ensure that the right for a fair trial for every person criminally tried on Canadian soil and the right for them to be tried within a reasonable time. This ensures that when the trial is commenced in court while the evidence is fresh and available during the trial. However, trials in the Canadian justice system can be delayed due to many factors in which the criticism could be on either the Crown or the accused. This essay will examine the Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Morin. In this case, the accused was charged for impaired driving and the trial date set 399 days after the judge scheduled the trial. In total this was 444-days after the accused was charged with the impaired driving offence. The final verdict of this case set a precedent in the justice system due to the decision by the Ontario Court of appeal that decided that the trial delay was reasonable due to lack of prejudice to the accused during the delay.
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
This concept now embedded in the Federal Rules of Evidence can trace its philosophical underpinnings in prerevolutionary England. Before the 17th century, English courts had very few limitations on what evidence could be admitted into court.3 This court system, which was created in the wake of Norman invasion in 1066, did not ...
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal justice system by aiding an investigator’s case with scientific information based on the analysis of the evidence. Each crime scene is unique in its own way and using the evidence collected, forensic experts try to piece it together. An expert is someone who has had enough education, training, and experience to testify to the matter at hand (Harmon 2010). Unlike other witnesses in a case who testify based on first hand knowledge, the expert witness is not required to have firsthand knowledge of a particular case, and in fact, often does not. Rather, the expert witness testifies to the meaning of the facts (Whitcomb et al. 2005). Each forensic expert typically has a background in another scientific discipline, such as biology, physics, chemistry, etc. An expert with a biology background may work with DNA; chemistry may work in toxicology; and physics in blood spatter trajectories. Working separately on their own respected evidence, an investigator is able to collect all their data and set up a case (National Institute of Justice 2013). Usually, these experts will be hired by either the prosecution or defense in a criminal trial, or by a plaintiff or defendant in a civil litigation. The role of the expert witness exists in variants: between criminal and civil courts as well as the prosecution and defense.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.