24 April 2025 Keith Rix 2320 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 Do not leave it until cross-examination to reveal your true opinion Take care not to conflate your role as a contractor with your duties as an expert witness Podcast Episode 26: Expert Advisor versus Expert Witness Gary Alexander MacDougall v Lloyd Philip Thomas & Ors [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) Experts who rise above the fray and fully discharge their duties to assist the Court 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.