Omskrywing van ‘n deskundige getuie in die Verenigde Koninkryk

Daar sal vervolgens na die omskrywing van deskundiges in die Verenigde Koninkryk gekyk word.

Deskundiges is reeds sedert die 14de eeu in Engelse howe gebruik en vir meer as 200 jaar in die Amerikaanse gemeenregtelike howe.315 Reeds sedert die 14de eeu is daar kritiek op die gebruik van deskundige getuienis gelewer.

Volgens Meyer316 het Wigmore reeds in die vroeë twintigerjare van die vorige eeu opgemerk dat die toelating van deskundige getuienis meer as enige ander reël van die prosesreg bygedra het om verhore in ’n dobbelspel te verander.

Sedert die 18de eeu het die hoeveelheid kennis en die ontwikkeling van nuwe tegnologie wetenskaplikes verplig om op ‘n bepaalde wetenskaplike gebied of onderafdelings van die wetenskap te spesialiseer, soos byvoorbeeld in chemie en biologie.

314

Meintjes-Van der Walt 2001:241.

315

Meyer 1999:2.

316

In die Engelse asook Suid-Afrikaanse en Walliese howe is dit nie nodig dat ‘n deskundige professioneel of akademies gekwalifiseerd moet wees nie.317 Solank as wat hy of sy relevante ondervinding en kennis van die betrokke veld het, word sodanige persoon as ‘n deskundige vir doeleindes van getuienislewering geag.318

Indien ’n deskundige by litigasie betrokke is, geld die Civil Procedure

Rules.319 Baker en Lavers320 meen dat die pligte van die deskundige getuie teenoor die howe, soos vervat in die Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)

1998 (SI 1998/3132) 35.3 oftewel die Civil Procedure Rules, nie die

vereistes met betrekking tot sodanige pligte vervat nie. Hierdie vereistes is egter in die New Civil Justice Council Protocol for the Instruction of

Experts to give Evidence in Civil Claims, oftewel die Protocol, vervat.

Die Civil Procedure Rule 35.3 maak vir die gebruik van deskundige getuienis in howe voorsiening en bepaal die volgende:321

35.3 (1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise.

(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid.

317

Meintjes-Van der Walt 2001:241.

318

Meintjes-Van der Walt 2001:241.

319 http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part35.htm#rule35_4 Op 2007/10/16; Baker en Lavers 2005:x. 320 2005:1. 321 Baker en Lavers 2005:92.

Die Civil Procedure Rule 35.4 maak verder voorsiening dat die hof toestemming moet verleen alvorens ‘n deskundige getuienis mag aflê.322

Rule 35.4 bepaal die volgende:323

(1) No party may call an expert or put in evidence in an expert’s report without the court’s permission.

(2) When a party applies for permission under this rule he must identify -

(a) the field in which he wishes to rely on expert evidence; and

(b) where practicable the expert in that field on whose evidence he wishes to rely.

(3) If permission is granted under this rule it shall be in relation only to the expert named or the field identified under paragraph (2).

(4) The court may limit the amount of the expert’s fees and expenses that the party who wishes to rely on the expert may recover from any other party.

’n Party wat aansoek doen moet dus die deskundige se naam asook die spesialiteitsveld van die deskundige vermeld.324

Die algemene vereiste is dat deskundige getuienis deur middel van ’n

322 Baker en Lavers 2005:92. 323 http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part35.htm#rule35_4 Op 2007/10/16. 324 Baker en Lavers 2005:92.

geskrewe verslag in die hof aangebied word en Rule 35.5(1) bepaal in die verband die volgende:325

35.5(1) Expert evidence is to be given in a written report unless the court directs otherwise.

(2) If a claim is on the fast track, the court will not direct an expert to attend a hearing unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.

Artikel 30 van die Criminal Justice Act van 1998 is van belang met betrekking tot die toelaatbaarheid van deskundige getuienis tydens strafverhore. Dié artikel bepaal dat ‘n deskundige se verslag wel toelaatbaar sal wees ongeag of sodanige persoon viva voce-getuienis tydens die verhoor gaan lewer al dan nie.326

Artikel 30 lees as volg:

(1) An expert report shall be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, whether or not the person making it attends to give oral evidence in those proceedings.

(2) It is proposed that the person making the report shall not give oral evidence; the report shall only be admissible with the leave of the court.

(3) For the purpose of determining whether to give leave the court shall have regard –

a. To the contents of the report;

325

Baker en Lavers 2005:92.

326

b. To the reasons why it is proposed that the person making the report shall not give oral evidence;

c. To any risk, having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert statements in the report if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence in the proceedings, that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to the accused or, if there is more than one, to any of them; and

d. To any other circumstances that appear to the court to be relevant.

(4) An expert report, when admitted, shall be evidence of any fact or opinion of which the person making it could have given oral evidence.

(5) In this section ‘expert report’ means a written report by a person dealing wholly or mainly with matters on which he is (or would if living be) qualified to give expert evidence.

Verder bepaal hierdie artikel dat so ‘n verslag wel toelaatbare getuienis sal wees, met die verlof van die hof, in die aanwesigheid van die aanbied van viva voce-getuienis deur die deskundige self.

In die beslissing van Anglo Group PLC v Winther Brown & Co327 is die rol wat die deskundige getuie by die verhoor speel as volg deur Baker en Lavers328 opgesom:

327

Anglo Group PLC v Winther Brown & Co (2002) 72 Con LR 118, T & CC.

328

• An expert witness should at all stages in the procedure, on the

basis of the evidence as he understands it, provide independent assistance to the court and the parties by way of objective, unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. An expert should never assume the role of an advocate.

• The expert’s evidence should normally be confined to technical

matters on which the court will be assisted by receiving an explanation, or to evidence of common professional practice. The expert witness should not give evidence or opinions as to what the expert himself would have done in similar circumstances or otherwise seek to usurp the role of the judge.