Provision of expert evidence in the adversary legal system

An expert, in the adversarial legal system, must meet set obligations. The Court must need an expert to clarify issues, not readily intelligible for the lay person. The chosen expert must stay within his/her expertise with responsibility to the Court, rather than the instructing lawyer. Australian jurisdictions established a 'code of conduct' which stipulates the expert's responsibilities. The expert, either in a written report or evidence in person, must confirm the initial prerequisites, providing a resume and commitment to the code of conduct. (S)he must have access to all necessary material, required to clarify the issues under review. This may be restricted to review of available documents or require examination of a patient. A report, prepared for the Court, must confirm adherence to the prerequisites and justify conclusions and opinions reached, with the author prepared to be rigorously cross examined, either within the Court or via reports, from alternative expert(s). If 'cross examination' ignores the content of the evidentiary material and focuses solely on (s)he who is presenting it, this affirms its veracity as it attacks the messenger, rather than the message. In Court, the expert must remain calm and be prepared to defend the report upon which (s)he is being cross examined. Should that cross examination introduce new assumptions, if they change the opinions expressed within the initial report, this must be clearly stated and the reasons given, emphasising that this is based on the new assumptions. There is a move towards concurrent expert testimony.