专家证据司法控制的路径选择——以香港民事专家证据制度的改革为中心  

The Path Selection of Judicial Control on Expert Evidence:Centering on the Reform of Civil Expert Evidence System in Hong Kong

作　　者：周一颜[1] 

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院,福建厦门361005

出　　处：《大连理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2013年第4期131-136,共6页Journal of Dalian University of Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目:"台港澳民事诉讼制度改革研究"(11BFX133)

摘　　要：我国香港地区的民事专家证据制度长期面临着专家证据被滥用、专家证人缺乏独立性等问题。2009年4月2日,民事司法制度改革正式生效施行。新规则收紧了对专家证据的司法控制,通过赋予法庭案件管理权以阻止不必要的专家证据进入诉讼程序,明确专家对于法庭的优先职责,设立单一共聘专家证据制度等措施回应了上述问题。尽管这些改革措施与英国专家证据制度相比具有很大的类同性,但在微观制度的具体构建上仍然体现出香港司法界独立、审慎地对待既有经验之态度。从比较考察的角度审视,香港专家证人制度与我国内地鉴定人制度在改革思路上呈现出了共同的取向。The system of Hong Kong expert evidence had been confronted with problems as expert evidence were often excessively used and expert witnesses were lacking in independence over a long period of time.The enactment of civil justice reform in Hong Kong came into effect on 2April 2009.In response to the perceived defects,the new rules aim to strengthen control of expert evidence through endowing case management power to exclude inappropriate expert evidence,providing an overriding duty to the court for expert,and introducing the system of single joint expert.These measures are largely similar to the counterpart of England but still show an independent and cautious attitude of Hong Kong judiciary towards the existing experience on concrete systems.From a comparative perspective,the systems of expert evidence in Hong Kong and identification in China's Mainland have manifested the same orientation of reform ideas.

关 键 词：专家证据 案件管理 角色定位 民事司法改革 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]