TY - JOUR
T1 - Expert Evidence, “Naked Statistics” and Standards of Proof
AU - Ward, Tony
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - In the context of the UK Supreme Court decision in Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011) this article discusses the question whether so-called “naked statistical evidence” can satisfy the civil standard of proof in English law, the “balance of probabilities”. It argues that what is required to satisfy the standard is a judicial belief that causation is more likely than not, rather than a categorical belief that causation occurred. Whether such a belief is justified depends on the weight of the evidence as well as the degree of probability it purports to establish, but there is no reason of principle why epidemiological evidence alone should not satisfy this standard.
AB - In the context of the UK Supreme Court decision in Sienkiewicz v Greif (2011) this article discusses the question whether so-called “naked statistical evidence” can satisfy the civil standard of proof in English law, the “balance of probabilities”. It argues that what is required to satisfy the standard is a judicial belief that causation is more likely than not, rather than a categorical belief that causation occurred. Whether such a belief is justified depends on the weight of the evidence as well as the degree of probability it purports to establish, but there is no reason of principle why epidemiological evidence alone should not satisfy this standard.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85007236873
U2 - 10.1017/S1867299X00006097
DO - 10.1017/S1867299X00006097
M3 - Article
SN - 1867-299X
VL - 7
SP - 580
EP - 587
JO - European Journal of Risk Regulation
JF - European Journal of Risk Regulation
IS - 3
ER -