Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter VIII. The basic features of the Hungarian evidence system • The means of evidence in general
›
8.4. Basic principles of expert evidence
›
8.4.3. The effectiveness of expert evidence in Hungarian practice. Summary Opinion of the Jurisprudence Analysis Group of the Curia

8.4.3. The effectiveness of expert evidence in Hungarian practice. Summary Opinion of the Jurisprudence Analysis Group of the Curia

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The basic problems in Hungarian proceedings are related to regulatory deficiencies in the conditions for becoming a forensic expert,1 professional-legal errors and the remuneration of experts.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The general problems with professional errors are:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. In many cases, experts are not familiar with the basic institutions of procedural law, although this should be expected as a minimum, given their status on the register of experts. In particular, there is a general lack of knowledge about the exercise of procedural rights and the content of expert opinions. It is “essential that this opinion should meet the procedural, logical and professional requirements for taking evidence. Therefore, in addition to specialist knowledge, the expert’s scientific competence also requires a thorough knowledge of the relevant procedural law […]. An expert who is a recognised authority in his field but lacks knowledge of criminal procedure – generally and usually on the basis that a lack of legal knowledge or even a superficial knowledge of the law is sufficient to formulate an expert opinion – is hardly suited to this task.”2
  2. Another common problem is that the secondment orders do not specify precisely or at all the technical issues to be examined, but in such cases the experts feel obliged to respond and, for reasons of professional pride, instead of calling on the competent authorities to correct these decisions, they issue unsubstantiated, incomplete or logically contradictory opinions. However, “this is impermissible under the spirit and the express provisions of the CPC.”3
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The above shortcomings should be addressed at the legislative level, as improving the quality of expert evidence could greatly help to speed up and improve the efficiency of proceedings. Of course, the question may arise as to how many flawed expert opinions can be used to measure professional competence.4 Is it even possible to quantify these criteria? There is no clear practice in this respect in Hungary, but in principle there are two possible solutions for the competent authorities: (1) not to appoint the expert further, or (2) to notify the Chamber of Legal Experts or the Minister responsible for Justice of the expert’s unsuitability by means of a signal.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The Jurisprudence Analysis Group of the Curia has also carried out extensive research of a general nature on expert evidence. In its summary opinion, the findings on criminal procedure were as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • 2.3% of the parties in the proceedings examined proposed the questioning;
  • the expert was questioned directly by the accused in 30% of cases;
  • the expert indicated a lack of data in 3.6% of cases and requested additional data in 10%;
  • expert evidence is usually taken during the investigation;
  • the appointment of an expert is exceptional in the court phase, but if it does take place, it is done at the first, middle stage of the first instance;
  • the data of the expert opinions were distributed as follows: 34 documents, 26 personal examinations (of which 20% concerned mental health), 12 subject examinations;
  • in 56% of criminal cases, more than one expert was needed, but they gave opinions on different subjects;
  • in 33% of late opinions, the expert was asked in writing to comply with the deadline, but in 63% no action was taken by the judge;
  • the findings on the expertise of experts were as follows: (1) some technical and motor vehicle experts do not have the specialised experience required for criminal cases; (2) medical experts may not answer specific questions raised by criminal law; (3) mental experts with less experience do not dare to take a position on the question of the impact of the illness on the ability to pay.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In a traffic case involving four fatalities, examined by the Curia Judge Katalin Csere, several experts of different specialties were involved in the investigation: (1) an autopsy doctor, (2) an expert responsible for the identification of the person, (3) an expert examining the alcohol and drug intoxication of the accused, and (4) a technical expert.5 On the basis of the investigation data, the defenders requested the appointment of technical and medical experts in several cases. The trial court excluded two forensic experts on the grounds that they could not be expected to give an impartial opinion. The final conclusion of the jurisprudence analysis group was that the “expert battles” resulted in an abuse of procedural law in the above criminal case.6
1 See under the current rules, it is still sufficient to have a clean criminal record, a higher education qualification and 5 years’ experience, or, if there is no higher education qualification, a secondary education qualification and at least 10 years’ experience. In addition, therefore, the current legislation does not require any other specific qualifications for entry on the register of experts.
2 Kereszty (2007) ibid. 108.
3 Miklós Destek (1998) ibid. 57.
4 Ágnes Gimesi: Szakértő – szakértelem. [Expert Expertise.] In Mihály Tóth (2003) ibid. 232.
5 It should be noted that already at the investigative stage, two additional forensic medical opinions were available in relation to alcohol intoxication.
6 Viktor Bérces – Andrea Domokos: A „túlbizonyítás” jelensége és okai a büntetőbíróságok gyakorlatában. [The phenomenon and reasons of over-proofing in the practice of criminal courts.] Ügyészek Lapja, 2016/1. 15.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave