Expert Evidence on the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification – Some Observations on the Justifications for Exclusion: Gage v HM Advocate

(2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 93-105

11 Pages Posted: 18 Dec 2015

Date Written: November 4, 2011

Abstract

In Gage v HM Advocate, the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland considered the admissibility of expert testimony concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification. It concluded that such evidence was inadmissible for the following reasons: (i) the trial provides adequate safeguards, (ii) the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identification are matters within the common knowledge and experience of the jury, and; (iii) the reception of such evidence is likely to make the jury unduly sceptical of eyewitness identification evidence generally. This note provides a critique of this reasoning.

Keywords: Law of Evidence, Expert Testimony, Eyewitness Identification

Suggested Citation

Roberts, Andrew J., Expert Evidence on the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification – Some Observations on the Justifications for Exclusion: Gage v HM Advocate (November 4, 2011). (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 93-105, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2704672

Andrew J. Roberts (Contact Author)

Melbourne Law School ( email )

185 Pelham Street
Carlton
Victoria, 3052
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
73
Abstract Views
474
rank
357,686
PlumX Metrics