From deference to education: A Singaporean case study on the evolving role of experts in the law of evidence

There lies a long-standing debate in the law of expert evidence as to whether factfinders should be educated by experts or defer to their opinions. Under the ‘Education Model’, experts aim to educate the factfinder on a particular topic, thereby enabling the factfinder to develop its own views on the matter. Under the ‘Deference Model’, experts present the factfinder with possible conclusions to accept or reject. Using Singapore's law on expert evidence as a case study, we explore the practical implications of both models. We argue that an approach that aligns with the Education Model best serves the normative goals of a trial. Nonetheless, we recognise a limited role for aspects of the law to be aligned with the Deference Model, where it is impracticable to educate the factfinder in a reasonable timeframe due to the technical nature of the subject matter. Lastly, we examine the main challenges associated with each model and propose solutions, including (i) a general training programme for factfinders, and (ii) the use of neutral court-appointed experts, as potential ways forward.