Expert evidence on trial

Abstract

SummaryThe complex nature and consequences of fraud are illustrated by the case of ‘Dr’ Barian Baluchi, who held himself out to be a consultant neuropsychiatrist before being convicted of deception, actual bodily harm and procuring registration by making false declarations. Under the proposed UK Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill, psychiatric experts in fraud cases are likely to find the admissibility of their evidence tested against statutory criteria. Where they rely on test results, they will need to know the validity of the methods and show that they have taken proper account of the degree of precision or margin of uncertainty affecting the accuracy or reliability of their results. Proposals to reform the law on unfitness also have implications for psychiatric assessment in fraud cases. It will now be even more important for psychiatric opinion evidence to be demonstrably sound and of such evident strength that there is no issue as to its admissibility and the judge can presume evidentiary reliability.