Much academic literature explores the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. However, almost no attention has been paid to misconduct by experts giving evidence in criminal cases. Whilst rare, its serious impact on the administration of justice and public trust in it means that this area requires analysis. This article explores possible responses to expert witness misconduct occurring in the context of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, noting particularly the differences in responses available, depending firstly upon whether the expert is a registered professional, and secondly whether the expert has stepped outside of their expertise; did not have relevant expertise at all, or was dishonest. Professional disciplinary procedures focus on ‘fitness to practise’, and it is argued that this is sufficient where a registered professional has overstepped their expertise, but has not displayed mala fides. On the contrary, where someone gives evidence purporting to have expertise that they do not, or lies about their conduct as an expert in the case, criminal sanctions are available, appropriate, and should be used. These include contempt of court; perverting the course of justice; fraud by false representation, and perjury.
In October 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Norman, an appeal against conviction for misconduct in public office on the basis of information sold to a newspaper by a serving prison officer. The particular interest in the appeal, however, comes from its wider engagement of rights afforded by Article 10 ECHR and the interaction of that provision with voluntary disclosure. The decision highlights that where information about a source is provided voluntarily by a newspaper, the source will struggle to argue that Article 10 rights have been infringed. This article explores the existing law on journalistic privilege and highlights the gap in the precedents that means, even post Norman, there is no clear answer to a question likely to be increasingly important in times of closer scrutiny of the media.
This article explores the normative position and theoretical justifications for sentencing first-time offenders more leniently than repeat offenders, and examines whether such a practice is defensible. Those justifications include a lack of awareness of the gravity of criminal behaviour, a single lapse, that no censure has previously been communicated by the criminal justice system to that person, adolescent-limited offending, the impact of being in a minority group, and non-uniform impact. It examines whether various sentencing philosophies support sentence reductions for first-time offenders, and whether the justifiability of such practices depends on the theoretical basis and aims of sentencing, for instance the role of proportionality and deterrence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.