{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02275960170697013, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.121739130434783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Expert Opinion Evidence: The Middle Way

This article assesses the admissibility of expert testimony and suggests that generic principles for admission may, taken in isolation, be more inclined to mislead than assist. Instead, it is preferable to consider each case on an individual basis. This is the current judicial response. The judicial response, whilst broadly correct in approach, may benefit in terms of implementation by greater precision of definition. Judges may benefit from guidance provided by working parties outside the courtroom. A middle path is suggested charting a path between laissez-faire admission, on the one hand, and a call for pervasive principles of admission, on the other.