Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Preface
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- Introduction
- 1 General epistemological issues
- 2 Expert evidence as a special case for judicial assessment
- 3 Making sense of expert disagreement
- 4 Non-epistemological factors in determining the role of the expert
- 5 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts: the sixteenth to twentieth centuries
- 6 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts today
- 7 The effective management of bias
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998
- Appendix 2 Tables of pre-1800 civil cases involving expert evidence
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
5 - Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts: the sixteenth to twentieth centuries
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- Preface
- Table of legislation
- Table of cases
- Introduction
- 1 General epistemological issues
- 2 Expert evidence as a special case for judicial assessment
- 3 Making sense of expert disagreement
- 4 Non-epistemological factors in determining the role of the expert
- 5 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts: the sixteenth to twentieth centuries
- 6 Assessing expert evidence in the English civil courts today
- 7 The effective management of bias
- Conclusion
- Appendix 1 Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998
- Appendix 2 Tables of pre-1800 civil cases involving expert evidence
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
5.1 Introduction
This chapter is the first of a pair which examine in detail how epistemological and non-epistemological factors combine to produce a range of expert roles, taking English civil procedure as a case study. In this chapter, I examine the historical development of provisions intended to assist the assessment of expert evidence in the English civil courts. My time frame is from the end of the fifteenth century, when civil cases involving expert evidence are first recorded, through to the last days of the Rules of the Supreme Court at the very end of the twentieth century. The relationship between the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and the effective assessment of expert evidence are the subject of Chapter 6, the second chapter in this pairing.
Some might approach this as an optional chapter within the book as a whole. What, after all, can legal history tell us about modern-day evidence law? This is both a normative question (what should legal history be entitled to tell us?) and an evidential question (how much do we know about the history of evidence law for it to be able to tell us anything useful?). The history of civil expert evidence is relevant to the modern-day question of its assessment in two ways. The first is that, by understanding the traditions of procedural and evidential thought and practice that have led us to where we are today, we might have a better understanding of relevant non-epistemological factors, such as are described in Chapter 4.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence , pp. 238 - 281Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
, Surgeons at the Bailey: English Forensic Medicine to 1878 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press,1985)Google Scholar
, ‘One Hundred Years of Rectitude: Medical Witnesses at the Old Bailey, 1717–1817’ (1998) 16 Law and History Review445–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review1723–1845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society369–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Observers, Advisers, or Authorities? Experts, Juries and Criminal Responsibility in Historical Perspective’ (2001) 12 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’ (1999) 12 Science in Context7–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
, ‘Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge MA: Charles W. Fever, 1900), p. 666.Google Scholar
, The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809) (Ann Arbor MI: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 2004)Google Scholar
and (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction, folio 108 (London: Selden Society, 1992).Google Scholar
, The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)Google Scholar
(ed.), Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., folios 73 and 79 (London: Selden Society, 1954 and 1961).Google Scholar
, Cases Concerning Equity and the Courts of Equity 1550–1660, 2 vols., folios 117 and 118 (London: Selden Society, 2000 and 2001)Google Scholar
British Trials 1660–1900: The Guide to the Microfiche Edition Containing a Full Bibliographical Listing Together with Nine Indexes (Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1990)
(ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1547–1602), 2 vols., folios 6 and 11 (London: Selden Society, 1892 and 1897).Google Scholar
, ‘Legal History with 21st Century Tools: the English Reports on CD-ROM and Bracton on the Web’ (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Jury Research in the English Reports in CD-ROM’, in and (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 131–53.
, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London: Butterworths, 2002), p. 182.Google Scholar
, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005).Google Scholar
, ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review1–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review601–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999), pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. II: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 227Google Scholar
, Doctors' Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
, ‘The Club of the Royal College of Physicians, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers and their Relationship to the Royal Society Club’ (1967) 22 Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London186–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Of Witches, Madmen, and Products Liability: An Historical Survey of the Use of Expert Testimony’ (1995) 13 Behavioral Sciences and the Law131–57, at 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983) vol. iv p. 105.Google Scholar
‘Scientific Expert Testimony in Anglo-American Courts, 1782–1923’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley (1997), 14.
, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: California University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
1632 Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Florence: Giovanni Battista Landini, 1632)Google Scholar
, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar
, ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: the Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine349–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar
, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), pp. 25 and 118.Google Scholar
, Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law, 2nd edn (London: Sweet, 1854), p. 593Google Scholar
, Doctors and the Law: Medical Jurisprudence in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
, ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review137–221, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Special Juries: A Solution to the Expert Witness’ (2004) Irish Student Law Review19–47, 33.Google Scholar
, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898), p. 94.Google Scholar
, ’The Strange Life of the English Civil Jury, 1837–1914’, in and (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 173–215, pp. 199–203.Google Scholar
, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), ch. 5.Google Scholar
, ‘From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling for Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1998) 3 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy1Google Scholar
, ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review1361–420.Google Scholar
, ‘The Trinity House at Deptford in the Sixteenth Century’ (1950) 65 English Historical Review458–76, at 464Google Scholar
Re Rumney and Wood (1541), in (ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, pp. 102–4, trans. pp. 213–15
, ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts’ 33 Modern Law Review (1970) 494–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London’ (2003) 21 Law and History Review41–67 at fn. 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution’ (1978) 22 American Journal of Legal History137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Legalizing Medicine: Early Modern Legal Systems and the Growth of Medico-legal Knowledge’, in and , Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England’ (1990) 75 Cornell Law Review, 497–609Google Scholar
, ‘From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: the Transformation of the English Civil Juror’ (1988) 32 American Journal of Legal History201–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Historical Background’, in (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1–15, p. 7.Google Scholar
, ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review1105–27, 1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, First Report of the Commissioners (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869), p. 12.Google Scholar
, ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review174–91, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems213–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review98–105.Google Scholar
, ‘Civilians Don't Try: A Comment on Mirjan Damaška's “Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited”’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law69–78Google Scholar
, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law25–39.Google Scholar
, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review40–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Chadbown (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981), vol. VII, [1920]–[1921].Google Scholar
, ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review132–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 14.Google Scholar