« National laboratory avoids Italy quake damage | Main | Alzheimer's gene linked to overworked memory »

Bookmark in Connotea

Judging science in court - April 07, 2009

gavel.JPGExpert witnesses in UK trials could soon have to prove just how expert they actually are.

The government’s independent legal advisory commission has published a set of proposals to reform the current “unsatisfactory” provision of expert evidence, following a series of scandals.

The Law Commission’s consultation paper warns that there is a danger juries may simply defer to ‘experts’ when there are legitimate questions about the reliability of their evidence (paper pdf).

“Expert evidence, particularly scientific evidence, can have a very persuasive effect on juries,” says Jeremy Horder, the commissioner leading the project (Indepdendent, Telegraph).

“There have been miscarriages of justice in recent years where prosecution expert evidence of doubtful reliability has been placed before Crown Court juries. There may also have been unwarranted acquittals attributable to such evidence.”

The consultation paper suggests a new test for determining the admissibility of evidence for both the prosecution and the defence, based on the Daubert Standard from the United States. This standard holds that expert testimony must be relevant to the case and also reliable, with the later meaning the evidence must be based on the proper scientific method.

There is, of course, considerable legal debate over what that means but the commission paper says “criticisms levelled against a test of this sort are unpersuasive”.

Both the Independent and the Daily Telegraph highlight the case of Sally Clark, which the commission also notes. The Independent writes:

The most troubling case in recent years was that of solicitor Sally Clark who was convicted of murdering her two infant sons after a jury heard that the chances of the babies dying natural deaths was one in 73 million.

That statistic was later shown to have "grossly" misrepresented the chance of two sudden deaths within the same family from unexplained but natural causes. Sally Clark had her convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2003 but never recovered from her ordeal and was found dead at her home in 2007

See also: Ariz. high court validates standards for expert witnesses in liability cases - American Medical News

Image: Punchstock

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thegreatbeyond at nature.com'.

please enter code

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/7939