Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:16:17.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expert Evidence, “Naked Statistics” and Standards of Proof

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tony Ward
Tony Ward*
Affiliation:
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the context of the UK Supreme Court decision in Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011) this article discusses the question whether so-called “naked statistical evidence” can satisfy the civil standard of proof in English law, the “balance of probabilities”. It argues that what is required to satisfy the standard is a judicial belief that causation is more likely than not, rather than a categorical belief that causation occurred. Whether such a belief is justified depends on the weight of the evidence as well as the degree of probability it purports to establish, but there is no reason of principle why epidemiological evidence alone should not satisfy this standard.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 580 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Clermont, Kevin M. and Sherwin, Emily, “A Comparative View of Standards of Proof” 50 American Journal of Comparative Law (2002), pp. 243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

2 Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman [2001] UKHL 47; Re D [2008] UKHL 33; Re B (Children) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35; In Re S-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2009] UKSC 17. All 21st-century judgments cited in this article are available on the internet at <http://www.bailii.org> (last accessed 15 July 2013).

3 Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 568 at 586.

4 Re D, supra note 2, at para. 23.

5 Stein, Alex, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cf. McIvor, Claire, “Debunking Some Judicial Myths about Epidemiology and its Relevance to UK Tort Law” Medical Law Review (2013), pp. 553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq. at p. 568.

7 Broadbent, Alex, “Epidemiological Evidence in Proof of Specific Causation” 17 Legal Theory (2011) pp. 237 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Cranor, Carl F., Toxic Torts: Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice (Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 2006) at pp. 102-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK) Ltd., Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] UKSC 10.

10 Gold, Steve, “Causation in Toxic Torts: Burdens of Proof, Standards of Persuasion and Statistical Evidence”, 96 Yale Law Journal (1986) pp. 376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

11 Miller, Chris, “Causation in Personal Injury: Legal or Epidemiological Common Sense?” 26 Legal Studies (2006) pp. 544 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McIvor, “Debunking”, supra note 6, pp. 553 et sq.; Fulham-McQuillan, Sarah “Judicial Belief in Statistics as Fact: Loss of Chance in Ireland and England” 30 Professional Negligence (2014) pp. 9 et sqq. Google Scholar

12 Sienkiewicz, supra note 10, at paras. 156, 194, 217-222,

13 Hacking, Ian, The Emergence of Probability (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) at p. 12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ibid.

15 Mellor, Hugh, Probability: A Philosophical Introduction (London: Routledge, 2007) at pp. 11-14Google Scholar.

16 See supra , note 10 at paras. 156, 170.

17 Lewis, David, “A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance” in Harper, William L., Stalnaker, Robert and Pearce, Glenn (eds.) Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance and Time (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981) pp. 267 et sqq. at p. 270Google Scholar

18 Mellor, Probability, supra note 16, at p. 86.

19 Kaye, David. “The Laws of Probability and the Law of the Land” 47 University of Chicago Law Review (1979) pp. 34 et sqq. at p. 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Gold, “Causation”, supra note 11 at p. 383.

21 Wright, Richard H., “Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts” 76 Iowa Law Review (1988) pp. 1001 Google Scholar et sqq. at pp. 1063-4.

22 Gold, “Causation”, supra note 11, at p. 382.

23 Barnes, David W., “Too Many Probabilities: Statistical Evidence of Tort Causation” 64 Law and Contemporary Problems (2001), pp. 191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

24 ibid. at p. 192.

25 Lewis, “Subjectivist's Guide”, supra note 18 at pp. 266-7. Lewis’s view has been challenged: see Nelson, Kevin, “On Background: Using Two-Argument Chance” 166 Synthese (2009) pp. 165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq. at pp. 176-8

26 Barnes, “Too Many Probabilities”, supra note 24, p. 192.

27 Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, Epistemic Authority (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Ibid. at p. 105.

29 The classic statements of this principle are Davie v Edinburgh Corporation 1953 SLT 54 and R v Turner [1975] QB 834.

30 Dwyer, Déirdre, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at pp. 313-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Coopers Payen Ltd v Southampton Ferry Terminal Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1223 at para. 42.

32 Jacob, Robin, “Experts and Woolf: Have Things Got Better?” in Dwyer, Déirdre (ed.) The Civil Procedure Rules Ten Years On (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) pp. 293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq. at p. 296.

33 Goldman, Alvin, “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” 63 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2001) pp. 85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq. at p. 95.

34 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993)

35 Law Commission Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (London: The Stationery Office, 2011) at para. 1.32.

36 R v T (Footwear Mark Evidence) [2010] EWCA Crim 2439

37 Allen, Ronald J. and Pardo, Michael S., “The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence” 36 Journal of Legal Studies (2007) pp. 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

38 Keynes, John Maynard, A Treatise on Probability (London: Macmillan, 1921) at p. 78 Google Scholar; Stein, Foundations, supra note 5 at pp. 47-8.

39 Porat, Ariel and Stein, Alex, Tort Liability under Uncertainty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), at p. 47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Although Stein, Foundations, supra note 5, treats them as interchangeable, David Hamer shows that when evidence applies to particular cases, increasing weight can sometimes decrease resiliency: “Probability, Anti-Resilience and the Weight of Expectation” 11 Law, Probability & Risk (2012) pp. 135 et sqq.

41 Adler, Jonathan E., Belief's Own Ethics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002) at pp. 250-2Google Scholar.

42 McIvor, “Debunking”, supra note 12, at p. 581.

43 Cohen, Neil B., “Confidence in Probability: Burdens of Persuasion in a World of Imperfect Knowledge” 60 New York University Law Review (1985) pp. 385 Google Scholar et sqq.

44 Barnes, “Probabilities”, supra note 24 at p. 195.

45 XYZ v Schering Health Care [2002] EWHC 1420 (QB) at paras. 37-40.

46 See e.g. XYZ v Schering Health Care [2002] EWHC 1420 (QB)

47 Dwyer, Assessment, supra note 31 at pp. 98-101, 104-7.

48 For a critical view of XYZ see McPherson, Klim, “One Expert’s Experience” in Blom-Cooper, Louis (ed.) Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) pp. 159 Google Scholar et sqq.; but contrast Richard Wakeford, “Epidemiology and Litigation: The Sellafield Child Leukaemia Cases” 161 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) (1998), pp. 313 et sqq., discussing Reay and Hope v British Nuclear Fuels plc [1994] Env LR 320.

49 Law Commission, supra note 36, para. 3.113.

50 Ward, Tony, “Expert Evidence and the Law Commission: Implementation without Legislation?” Criminal Law Review (2013) pp. 561 Google Scholar et sqq.

51 Supra, note 35.

52 Supra, note 10, at para. 206 (Lord Kerr), 217 (Lord Dyson).

53 McIvor, supra note 6.

54 Sienkiewicz, supra note 10, at paras. 91, 222.

55 Ibid. at paras. 162-3, 170, 205.

56 Ibid. at para. 192.

57 Cohen, L. Jonathan, The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Sienkiewicz, supra note 10 para. 171 (a variation on the “blue bus” problem introduced by Laurence H. Tribe, “Trial by Mathematics” 84 Harvard Law Review (1971) pp. 1131 et sqq. at pp. 1140-1).

59 Nance, Dale A., “Allocating the Risk of Error: Its Role in the Theory of Evidence Law” 13 Legal Theory (2007) pp. 129 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq at pp. 140-3.

60 McIvor, supra note 12

61 Cohen, The Probable, supra note 53 at p. 81.

62 Wright, Richard W., “Proving Causation: Probability versus Belief” In Goldberg, Richard (ed.) Perspectives on Causation (Oxford: Hart, 2011), pp. 195 Google Scholar et sqq., at pp. 199-200

63 Sienkiewicz, supra note 10 at para. 156

64 Ibid., para. 170

65 Sienkiewicz, para. 222.

66 Wright, Richard H., “Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts” 76 Iowa Law Review (1988) pp. 1001 Google Scholar et sqq. at pp. 1063-4.

67 Lai, Ho Hock, A Philosophy of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at pp. 92-9Google Scholar.

68 Ibid. at p. 127.

69 Duff, Antony, Farmer, Lindsay, Marshall, Sandra and Tadros, Victor, The Trial on Trial, vol. 3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial (Oxford: Hart, 2007) at p. 71 Google Scholar; Adler, Ethics, supra note 41 at pp. 216-7; Ho, Philosophy, supra note 74 at pp. 194, 197.

70 Ho, Philosophy, supra note 74 at p. 226.

71 Wasserman, David T., “The Morality of Statistical Proof and the Risk of Mistaken Liability” 13 Cardozo Law Review (1991) pp. 935 Google Scholar et sqq.

72 Pundik, Amit, “Statistical Evidence and Individual Litigants: A Reconsideration of Wasserman's Argument from Autonomy” 12 International Journal of Evidence and Proof (2008) pp. 203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

73 Redmayne, Mike, “Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation” 62 Modern Law Review (1999) pp. 62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et sqq.

74 See supra, note 2.

75 Re B, supra note 2

76 Ibid., at para. 32.

77 Raz, Joseph, From Normativity to Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) at p. 37 (adopting a suggestion by Ulrike Heuer)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Supra, note 10, sub-heading at para. 154.

79 Ibid., para. 158, emphasis added.

80 Wright, “Proving Causation”, supra note 51 at p. 209.

81 Broadbent, “Epidemiological Evidence” supra note 7