The Use of Court- and Party-Appointed Experts in Legal Proceedings in Sweden: Judges’ Experiences and Attitudes

This paper presents the results of a study that is aimed at identifying differences between general and administrative courts in Sweden regarding the use of party- and court-appointed experts and the judges’ attitudes towards them. The subject matter of the study is important as courts grow increasingly dependent on expert knowledge. As part of the study, 144 judges have answered electronic surveys showing clear differences between the two types of courts and also between criminal, civil and administrative cases. Party-appointed experts are usually more frequently used in general courts than in administrative courts and court-appointed experts are more frequently used in administrative courts than in general courts. Administrative judges consider court-appointed experts more useful and impartial than judges do in general courts, but in terms of trustworthiness there are no differences. Judges in general state that expert knowledge is easy or fairly easy to understand, but administrative judges consider expert knowledge more relevant in relation to the courts’ needs and also regard it as being more influential for the judgments. The results point to differences between general and administrative courts regarding the use of, and attitudes toward, experts, which can be explained by separate rules of procedure and traditions. The more frequent use of party-appointed experts in general courts reflects an adversarial process, while the use of court-appointed experts in administrative courts indicates a more inquisitorial process