[澳大利亚]布鲁斯·托马斯·兰德尔 著 汪诸豪 译

【摘 要】通常而言，证人仅可就其亲身见闻作证并在作证过程中不得自行对其见闻进行推理。专家意见证据规则是该项基本原则的例外规定。澳大利亚普通法和《澳大利亚证据法典》均允许法院在适当场合下采纳专家意见。然而，法庭常担忧由当事人召集来的专家无法做到公正客观，因而无法帮助法庭客观、无偏私地理解证据，公正断案。本文是对澳大利亚联邦法院接收专家意见证据、该证据目的、该证据应以何种方式提出以便对法庭而言有价值、以及——由于各方当事人均雇佣各自的专家证人出庭，导致了专家潜在带有偏见——澳大利亚法院所面临困境之基本介绍。

【关键词】澳大利亚联邦法院 ；专家意见证据 ；专家潜在偏见

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2014）05-0609-13

The admission of expert evidence in Australian federal courts. Bruce Thomas Lander, Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) in South Australia; Former Judge at the Federal Court of Australia; Translated by Wang Zhuhao, “2011 Plan” – Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, Beijing 100088; Key Laboratory for Evidence Science (China University of Political Science and Law), Ministry of Education, Beijing 100088

【Abstract】The opinion evidence of experts is an exception to the general rule that witnesses can only give evidence of that which they have seen or heard and may not give evidence of inferences which arise from their observations. Both the Australian common law and the Australian Evidence Act recognize an exception to this general rule and allow in the appropriate circumstances for the admission of the opinion of an expert. However, Courts are often worried that the experts called by the parties will not be impartial and therefore will not help the Court understand the evidence in an objective and impartial way so as to decide the case fairly and correctly. This paper has been an introduction to the basis on which Australian Federal Courts receive expert evidence, the purpose of that evidence, the way in which that evidence should be presented so as to be valuable to the Court and the difficulties Australian Courts experience by reason of the expert potentially being biased as a result of being employed by each party.

【Key Words】Australian federal courts, Expert opinion evidence, Experts potentially being bias