Skip to Content
Evidence & LegalExpert Evidence Rules: USA, UK, Australia

Expert Evidence Rules: USA, UK, Australia

reference

Core idea

The methodology does not change with the venue. The blockchain behaves the same in London, Los Angeles, and Sydney. What changes, and changes in ways that directly govern how the report must be written, is the procedural framework the expert and the report have to satisfy. This is a different question from where to file a claim (see Recovery Jurisdictions and Crypto Case Law): this is what the court demands of you once you are giving evidence in it.

Citations are as given by the source and have not been independently verified here. Confirm each one before relying on it.

Components

United States. The most demanding of the three, largely because of Daubert.

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), refined in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), and FRE 702: expert testimony must rest on sufficient facts or data, be the product of reliable principles and methods, and reflect a reliable application of those methods to the facts. The trial judge is the gatekeeper and can exclude the evidence before a jury ever hears it.
  • FRCP Rule 26 governs expert disclosure in civil proceedings: a written report with the complete opinions, the basis and reasons for them, the facts and data considered, the exhibits to be used, the expert’s qualifications, a list of prior cases testified in, and the expert’s compensation.
  • The US also has the most developed crypto-specific case law of the three. Beyond United States v Sterlingov (D.D.C. 2024), multiple federal district courts have addressed the admissibility and reliability of blockchain analytics evidence, and the jurisprudence is moving fast.

United Kingdom. Civil expert evidence runs on CPR Part 35 and its Practice Direction.

  • Part 35 states explicitly that the expert’s duty to help the court overrides any obligation to the instructing party.
  • Report requirements include a statement that the expert understands that duty, a statement of the substance of all material instructions received, and a statement of the range of opinion on the matters addressed with reasons for the expert’s own position within that range.
  • Instructions to an expert must be documented in writing (see Scope the Engagement in Writing).
  • The joint expert meeting is more established in UK practice than in the other two: opposing experts are directed to identify the specific points of agreement and disagreement and produce a joint statement, which becomes a key document for the court.
  • D’Aloia v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2342 (Ch) is the benchmark UK judicial statement on crypto tracing evidence, and its emphasis on transparency, arithmetic auditability, and the inadequacy of black box methodology is what UK reports should be measured against.

Australia. A distinctive framework built on the uniform Evidence Acts plus federal and state practice instruments.

  • The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and its state and territory equivalents govern the admissibility of opinion evidence: it is admissible only if wholly or substantially based on the expert’s specialised knowledge, and that knowledge must rest on training, study, or experience.
  • The governing instrument in the Federal Court is the Expert Evidence Practice Note (GPN-EXPT), which incorporates the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct. Every Federal Court expert must read the Code and agree to be bound by it. It establishes a paramount duty to assist the court impartially, explicitly overriding any duty to the instructing party, and states the expert is not an advocate.
  • The Code requires each report to state the assumptions and material facts underlying every opinion, the reasons for each opinion, the literature and materials relied on, details of any examinations or tests conducted, and any qualification that would make an opinion incomplete or inaccurate if omitted. Where an expert changes their opinion on a material matter after delivering a report, a supplementary report is required immediately. The Code applies in substantially harmonised form across the Federal Court and most state Supreme Courts.
  • Judicial familiarity with crypto is developing but behind the US and UK, which puts a premium on the expert’s ability to make blockchain evidence comprehensible to a court seeing it for the first or second time.

Cross-jurisdictional matters. Funds stolen in one country routinely trace to exchanges in a second and wallets linked to people in a third. Where the same report may be used in more than one forum, it has to be structured to satisfy the most demanding standard without becoming procedurally deficient in the others, and that is a decision for the expert and the instructing lawyer together, made before the report is written.

When to use

Before writing any report that may be filed, and when scoping an engagement in a jurisdiction you have not worked in.

Avoid when

Do not treat this as legal advice on procedure. It is an orientation map, so you know which rulebook to ask instructing counsel about. The instruments themselves are the authority, and they get amended.

Six Characteristics of a Court-Credible Forensic Report · D’Aloia v Persons Unknown: When the Methodology Fails, Not the Trace · Recovery Jurisdictions and Crypto Case Law · Commercial Analytics & the Daubert Challenge · Fact Witness vs Expert Witness · Scope the Engagement in Writing · Reviewing an Opposing Forensic Report · Forensic Standards and Legal Instruments for Crypto Cases · Admissibility: The Three Gates

Last updated on
D'Aloia v Persons Unknown: When the Methodology Fails, Not the TraceForensic Standards and Legal Instruments for Crypto Cases