24 April 2025 Keith Rix 3118 Case Updates Does the face fit? by Keith Rix Commentary Experts are advised, if possible, to avoid expressing opinions on the basis of possibility. The usually applicable stand of proof is the civil standard – the balance of probabilities or more probable than not. The criminal standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (and not beyond all reasonable [sic] doubt as it is sometimes misquoted). In this case it was submitted that the expert used the terms "possibility", "high possibility" and "extremely high possibility" interchangeably and that this was insufficient to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. However, when the court analysed the expert’s report as a whole, it was clear that a tribunal of fact could safely conclude that the criminal standard of proof was satisfied. Learning points Take care when using terms such as ‘possibility’ (or ‘may’). To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Criminal standard of proofodontologypossibility-probabilityfacial recognition11. Report Writing Related articles DLP Ltd v Coram UK Holding Ltd [2026] EWHC 2448 (IPEC) (25 September 2026) Information publicly available on the internet - 'Digital Open Source Information' A Day in the Life of an Oil and Commodities Expert Witness A substantial limit to its evidential value The mandatory duty on range of opinion Switch article Not a bridge too far – dental negligence Previous Article Irish High Court introduces two new practice directions designed to streamline clinical negligence proceedings Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.