Is it not likely that the defence team sought expert advice, but decided it would provide more evidence for the prosecution? And - given that experts are at least supposedly impartial - the "defence" experts' evidence, under cross-examination by a well-adviced prosecution would end up being more supportive of the prosecution's case?
The discussion in this post based on tactical decisions taken at trial after an effective cross examination of a prosecuton expert takes no account of current criminal proceedure, under the Criminal Procxedure Rules Part 19 (readily available for all to read on the www.legislation.gov.uk webiste)
A defence expert report to be relied upon must be served in advance of trial. In practice it won't just be served but a judge is likely to require that experts meet in advance of trial to identify heads of agreement and disageement and issues.
So, while there is no requirement on a defence to call an expert if there is a tactical decision at trial not to, that expert's report will have been previously served on the court and prosecution. even if the report is not available to the public; a state of affairs that allows maximum uninformed speculations.
A far more common state of affarirs is that the defendant cannot find an expert whose opinion supports their case, or even one whose opinion casts doubt on expert evidence the prosecution rely on. In which case the defence will not serve or disclose any opinion they have obtained. (the prosecution in contrast are obliged to disclose any material undermining their case or supporitng a defence, and that includes experts' opinions.
The real worry about defence expert evidence is the restrictions on legal aid. If the defence solicitor is unable to identify a helpful expert early on, the defence are unlikely to get funding for more than one report
Is there not a possibility that the defence considered the part to be played by its own (hypothetical) expert to be inherently too argumentative? If we have understood the point of their submission of no case, the expert could only have been brought to make the sort of forensic arguments that were, in fact, made in that submission. There is a logical problem here, in that what would have been said in evidence is essentially an opinion, or even argument, that the prosecution's experts are unsound, because there is actually no worthwhile knowledge on the subject. It is not clear this would have gone down well with the judge (who seems to have struggled with the idea that this would, indeed, have been evidence) or the jury.
Is it not likely that the defence team sought expert advice, but decided it would provide more evidence for the prosecution? And - given that experts are at least supposedly impartial - the "defence" experts' evidence, under cross-examination by a well-adviced prosecution would end up being more supportive of the prosecution's case?
We do not know. That is one possible reason, there are others.
But whatever the explanation, good or bad, it results in a potential lacuna.
The discussion in this post based on tactical decisions taken at trial after an effective cross examination of a prosecuton expert takes no account of current criminal proceedure, under the Criminal Procxedure Rules Part 19 (readily available for all to read on the www.legislation.gov.uk webiste)
A defence expert report to be relied upon must be served in advance of trial. In practice it won't just be served but a judge is likely to require that experts meet in advance of trial to identify heads of agreement and disageement and issues.
So, while there is no requirement on a defence to call an expert if there is a tactical decision at trial not to, that expert's report will have been previously served on the court and prosecution. even if the report is not available to the public; a state of affairs that allows maximum uninformed speculations.
A far more common state of affarirs is that the defendant cannot find an expert whose opinion supports their case, or even one whose opinion casts doubt on expert evidence the prosecution rely on. In which case the defence will not serve or disclose any opinion they have obtained. (the prosecution in contrast are obliged to disclose any material undermining their case or supporitng a defence, and that includes experts' opinions.
The real worry about defence expert evidence is the restrictions on legal aid. If the defence solicitor is unable to identify a helpful expert early on, the defence are unlikely to get funding for more than one report
There is a special place in heaven for commenters who aver that a post "does not take account of" or "ignores" something-or-other.
Alas, all posts - indeed all commentary - has to be selective. Not everything can be mentioned.
Is there not a possibility that the defence considered the part to be played by its own (hypothetical) expert to be inherently too argumentative? If we have understood the point of their submission of no case, the expert could only have been brought to make the sort of forensic arguments that were, in fact, made in that submission. There is a logical problem here, in that what would have been said in evidence is essentially an opinion, or even argument, that the prosecution's experts are unsound, because there is actually no worthwhile knowledge on the subject. It is not clear this would have gone down well with the judge (who seems to have struggled with the idea that this would, indeed, have been evidence) or the jury.