While it appears that Dr Dixon might be an expert in reconstruction and academic processes, basing his professional opinion on [others] expert reports, and experimenting within a team of [different] experts; his involvement in the Oscar Trials also opens the door to several questions with regard to some of the ethical issues in expert witnessing.
With regard to proficiency, here Gerrie Nel seemingly referred to what is also called continuous professional development (CPD) in other professions. Medical professionals, for example, have to gather prescribed amounts of “points” annually, to keep their licence and continue practicing. Should you lapse, you run the risk of being scratched from the register.
One has to wonder why Dr Dixon does or did not regularly continue with skills development and/or cannot remember his last developmental trainings. On the other hand, it might be that the Geology profession has not yet progressed in the same regard as other professions in South Africa with regard to continuous professional development. It might even be that some academics [some professions] are not held to similar rigorous standards as other field practitioners. Even so, one would expect any professional to at least be sufficiently interested in his own profession to continuously update his knowledge and skills. And, to have at least an updated CPD record at hand when appearing in court.
Area of expertise or scope of practice, refers to your particular training and field of expertise. In the field of psychology, for example, one cannot work outside your field [category] of expertise (unless under supervision). You will not easily find an industrial psychologist offering psychotherapy, a counselling psychologist prescribing medication, a GP doing brain surgery, a Neurologist doing face lifts, a Social worker making a psychiatric diagnosis, etc. Exclusion (limited so, however) being that of a professional undergoing sufficient and continuous training after qualification per se to broaden his/her skills, or to specialise in additional areas.
Report writing – it is common practice to offer progress and final reports for court purposes. And to submit them at least a reasonable time before the trial starts. With required, detailed information. Which at the very least includes the process, methods, and all details with regard to tests and assessments conducted or reported on, chain of custody (if relevant) and so on. E.g. what did you receive, when, how was it used, how did you do it, where did you do it, what did you do, who was there, under which circumstances, problems experiences, who was responsible for what, and so forth. The moment you are contracted for any forensic/possible court purposes, it is understood that reports will be required. Process details (methodology) are always required. It is also common procedure, to state the exclusions or limitations in your report e.g. I was not able to interview this or that person, reasons for using particular evaluations/ or not, results might be skewed because of “this or that” and so forth.
Depending on notes in the court room, or not bringing evidence to the court? This really does not cut it. Not to mention causing such upheaval that rebuttal/s might be required (and possible further delay of the trial in total).
No wonder South Africa has [finally] decided early 2014 to introduce new legislation/regulation of role players and reports to be handed in, discussed and agreed upon, before a trial starts.
(One might wonder whether this was communicated to the defence, as some of Dr Dixon’s evidence was dated 05/04/2014 – long after the trial itself already commenced. As Gerrie Nel mentioned, now we may have to deal once again with possible contamination and reconstruction of evidence due to outside influences).
(But.... of course, this may also have been a clever ploy from the defence team all along?)
Barry Roux might be pulling his hair from his head after Dr Dixon’s cross examination by Gerrie Nel, we don’t know (his own expert witness contradicted Oscar's version?) Hopefully Barry Nel have some Aces and Jokers up his sleeve. If Oscar is “innocent”, I sincerely hope so.
Defence still might have succeeded in planting Reasonable Doubt (all the Defence has to do is to create sufficient Reasonable Doubt, and Oscar walks). New “probable/possible” evidence was introduced, and Dr Dixon did pave the way for other not yet known experts to enter the trial procedures with possibly even more new probabilities (We therefore might encounter an even more frustrated Gerrie Nel during coming May.)
I obviously have a lot more to say about the trial itself, the questions, the processes, more, reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt especially; but right now I am more concerned with implications of above for future expert witnesses and the integrity of expert witnessing.
Experts require expert knowledge in a specific field, and they should know their limitations. The court might also benefit by educating itself e.g. by which type of specialist would be acceptable for what type of evidence, especially be able to substantiate beforehand why a particular person is called as expert; but, the responsibility of determining suitability of expert witnessing actually rests upon the so-called specialist’s shoulders (you should know your own area of expertise as mentioned before, be able to say “No” when necessary, and at the very least, be able to refer to the correct people).
I therefore expect possible, eventual more rigorous regulations in this regard in the future as the Oscar Trials surely will serve as various presidents for Law students in the future.
So-called experts should also not only work within their scope of practice, have updated CPD records (and, tongue in the cheek, be substantially trained in withstanding Gerrie Nel-type cross-examinations...) but at the very least make sure their processes and paperwork is also in order.
Bottom line is, expert witnesses – while no-one can beforehand determine which way any evidence would lead whether from your own contracted witness or not - in any type of court case should also thoroughly examine and evaluate themselves beforehand as in any court case, expert witnesses are always “playing” with people’s lives: Bearing witness is not a game of innocent Monopoly or Domino’s.
With regard to proficiency, here Gerrie Nel seemingly referred to what is also called continuous professional development (CPD) in other professions. Medical professionals, for example, have to gather prescribed amounts of “points” annually, to keep their licence and continue practicing. Should you lapse, you run the risk of being scratched from the register.
One has to wonder why Dr Dixon does or did not regularly continue with skills development and/or cannot remember his last developmental trainings. On the other hand, it might be that the Geology profession has not yet progressed in the same regard as other professions in South Africa with regard to continuous professional development. It might even be that some academics [some professions] are not held to similar rigorous standards as other field practitioners. Even so, one would expect any professional to at least be sufficiently interested in his own profession to continuously update his knowledge and skills. And, to have at least an updated CPD record at hand when appearing in court.
Area of expertise or scope of practice, refers to your particular training and field of expertise. In the field of psychology, for example, one cannot work outside your field [category] of expertise (unless under supervision). You will not easily find an industrial psychologist offering psychotherapy, a counselling psychologist prescribing medication, a GP doing brain surgery, a Neurologist doing face lifts, a Social worker making a psychiatric diagnosis, etc. Exclusion (limited so, however) being that of a professional undergoing sufficient and continuous training after qualification per se to broaden his/her skills, or to specialise in additional areas.
Report writing – it is common practice to offer progress and final reports for court purposes. And to submit them at least a reasonable time before the trial starts. With required, detailed information. Which at the very least includes the process, methods, and all details with regard to tests and assessments conducted or reported on, chain of custody (if relevant) and so on. E.g. what did you receive, when, how was it used, how did you do it, where did you do it, what did you do, who was there, under which circumstances, problems experiences, who was responsible for what, and so forth. The moment you are contracted for any forensic/possible court purposes, it is understood that reports will be required. Process details (methodology) are always required. It is also common procedure, to state the exclusions or limitations in your report e.g. I was not able to interview this or that person, reasons for using particular evaluations/ or not, results might be skewed because of “this or that” and so forth.
Depending on notes in the court room, or not bringing evidence to the court? This really does not cut it. Not to mention causing such upheaval that rebuttal/s might be required (and possible further delay of the trial in total).
No wonder South Africa has [finally] decided early 2014 to introduce new legislation/regulation of role players and reports to be handed in, discussed and agreed upon, before a trial starts.
(One might wonder whether this was communicated to the defence, as some of Dr Dixon’s evidence was dated 05/04/2014 – long after the trial itself already commenced. As Gerrie Nel mentioned, now we may have to deal once again with possible contamination and reconstruction of evidence due to outside influences).
(But.... of course, this may also have been a clever ploy from the defence team all along?)
Barry Roux might be pulling his hair from his head after Dr Dixon’s cross examination by Gerrie Nel, we don’t know (his own expert witness contradicted Oscar's version?) Hopefully Barry Nel have some Aces and Jokers up his sleeve. If Oscar is “innocent”, I sincerely hope so.
Defence still might have succeeded in planting Reasonable Doubt (all the Defence has to do is to create sufficient Reasonable Doubt, and Oscar walks). New “probable/possible” evidence was introduced, and Dr Dixon did pave the way for other not yet known experts to enter the trial procedures with possibly even more new probabilities (We therefore might encounter an even more frustrated Gerrie Nel during coming May.)
I obviously have a lot more to say about the trial itself, the questions, the processes, more, reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt especially; but right now I am more concerned with implications of above for future expert witnesses and the integrity of expert witnessing.
Experts require expert knowledge in a specific field, and they should know their limitations. The court might also benefit by educating itself e.g. by which type of specialist would be acceptable for what type of evidence, especially be able to substantiate beforehand why a particular person is called as expert; but, the responsibility of determining suitability of expert witnessing actually rests upon the so-called specialist’s shoulders (you should know your own area of expertise as mentioned before, be able to say “No” when necessary, and at the very least, be able to refer to the correct people).
I therefore expect possible, eventual more rigorous regulations in this regard in the future as the Oscar Trials surely will serve as various presidents for Law students in the future.
So-called experts should also not only work within their scope of practice, have updated CPD records (and, tongue in the cheek, be substantially trained in withstanding Gerrie Nel-type cross-examinations...) but at the very least make sure their processes and paperwork is also in order.
Bottom line is, expert witnesses – while no-one can beforehand determine which way any evidence would lead whether from your own contracted witness or not - in any type of court case should also thoroughly examine and evaluate themselves beforehand as in any court case, expert witnesses are always “playing” with people’s lives: Bearing witness is not a game of innocent Monopoly or Domino’s.
RSS Feed
