Law_of_Evidence_in_Kenya

The prosecution argued that the glass came from a window broken during the robbery. In
support of this, one of the prosecution expert witness relied on statistics collected by the
Home Office Central Research Establishment in relation to the refractive index of broken
glass. The appellant contested that the evidence of this expert was inadmissible hearsay
because the expert had no personal knowledge of the analysis whose results were
collected in these statistics. In rejecting this contention, the court of appeal stated that
experts must be entitled to draw on material produced by others in their field of expertise.
It is part of their duty to consider any material that may be available and need to draw
conclusions based solely on their experience which would be invariably be limited.
4. In Armchair Passenger Transport Limited V Helical Bar Plc. 68 , Nelson J, after
considering the authorities laid down the following principles;
a. It is always desirable that an expert should have no actual or apparent interest in
the outcome of the proceedings.
b. The existence of such an interest, whether as an employee of one of the parties or
otherwise does not automatically render the evidence of the proposed expert
inadmissible.
c. The decision as to whether an expert should be permitted to give evidence in such
circumstances is a matter of fact and degree. The test of apparent bias is not
relevant to the question of whether or not an expert witness should be permitted to
give evidence.
d. The questions that have to be determined are whether;
I. The person has relevant expertise.
II. His aware of his primary duty to the court if he gives expert evidence and
is willing and able, despite the interest or connection with the litigation or
a party to carry out that duty.
e. If the expert has an interest which is not sufficient to preclude him from giving
evidence the interest may nevertheless affect the weight of his evidence.
HOW DO EXPERTS TESTIFY?
68 (2003) EWHC 367 (QB)