Introduction

In the case of Norman v ([2023] EWCA Crim 1112), the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) examined the conviction of Benjamin Norman, who was found guilty of causing death by careless driving under the influence of cannabis. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds that expert witnesses were not permitted to opine on the "ultimate issue"—specifically, whether the collision was more likely caused by cannabis impairment or an epileptic fit. This commentary explores the background, judgment summary, detailed analysis of legal reasoning and precedents, and the broader impact of the decision.

Summary of the Judgment

Benjamin Norman was convicted in the Crown Court at Luton for causing death by careless driving due to exceeding the legal limit for a controlled drug, specifically cannabis. Norman appealed his conviction, arguing that experts should have been allowed to express opinions on whether cannabis use or an epileptic fit more likely caused the collision. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, affirming that experts should not comment on ultimate issues outside their expertise and that the trial judge conducted the proceedings fairly.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents, notably:

• R v Stockwell (1993) 97 Cr App R 260: Affirmed that experts can, in certain circumstances, comment on ultimate issues without usurping the jury's role.
• R v Constantini [2005] EWCA Crim 821: Demonstrated that expert opinions favoring the defense do not necessarily render a verdict perverse if the jury acted within their discretion.
• Historical perspectives, such as those from Wright (1821) Russ & Ry and Director of Public Prosecutions v A and BC Chewing Gum Ltd [1968], were discussed to illustrate the evolution of the stance on expert testimonies concerning ultimate issues.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal issue addressed was whether experts should be permitted to opine on the ultimate question of causation between cannabis impairment and an epileptic fit. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the shift from the traditional rule limiting expert testimony on ultimate issues, recognizing that modern jurisprudence allows experts to provide opinions within their fields. However, it emphasized that experts must refrain from overstepping their expertise boundaries.

The court reasoned that allowing experts to speculate on which of two distinct causes is more probable would infringe upon the jury's role as the ultimate fact-finder. In this case, the experts lacked the interdisciplinary expertise required to make definitive statements comparing the effects of cannabis and epilepsy on driving capability. Consequently, their inability to provide a conclusive opinion on the ultimate issue did not undermine the fairness of the trial.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that while expert testimony is invaluable in elucidating complex technical or scientific matters, the determination of ultimate issues remains within the jury's purview. It underscores the necessity for experts to operate strictly within their specialized domains, avoiding conjecture on matters that require holistic factual assessment. Future cases involving similar disputes over expert opinions will likely reference this decision to delineate the scope of acceptable expert testimony.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ultimate Issue

The "ultimate issue" refers to the primary question in a trial that the jury is responsible for deciding. It is the fundamental point that determines the outcome of the case, such as whether the defendant is guilty or innocent.

Expert Testimony

Expert testimony involves specialized knowledge provided by individuals recognized as experts in a particular field. Their role is to assist the court in understanding complex evidence or issues beyond the average person's expertise.

Strict Liability Offence

A strict liability offence does not require proof of the defendant's intent or negligence. In Norman's case, it was sufficient to prove that he was over the legal limit for cannabis while driving, regardless of whether the cannabis directly caused the careless driving.

Conclusion

The Norman v EWCA Crim 1112 decision reaffirms the boundaries within which expert testimony must operate in criminal trials. By upholding the limitation that experts should not tackle ultimate issues beyond their expertise, the Court of Appeal ensures that the jury retains its essential role as the ultimate arbiter of factual disputes. This judgment provides clarity for future cases, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear division between factual determination and expert analysis to preserve the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.