ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the common law already provides the basis for a more rigorous approach: were the judges so minded, they could use their existing powers to achieve very similar results to those envisaged by the Law Commission. It shows that the basic principles of the common law—a broad test of prima facie admissibility coupled with a power to exclude evidence whose potential prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value—are sound, however inadequately they have been applied in some cases. The admissibility of expert evidence is governed by the same general principles that apply to any other kind of evidence. The weight of expert evidence is the persuasive force that it has from the standpoint of a jury of ordinary citizens. The advantages of the Law Commission’s proposals lie in their clarity, in the occasion that new legislation would afford for judicial training, and perhaps most importantly, in the provision for independent experts to advise judges on admissibility decisions.
