24 April 2025 Keith Rix 2887 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 A Day in the Life of an Occupational Therapy Expert Witness Expert Report or MG11 form? Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2026] EWHC 1843 (Ch) Dermot Speight & Ors (as trustees of the Thornaby Angling Association) v Robert James Pickersgill [2026] EWCC 48 Be cautious when accepting instructions from a Litigant in Person 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.