Admitting scientific expert evidence in the UK: reliability challenges and the need for revised criteria – proposing an Abridged Daubert

Abstract

Purpose – Expert evidence is a contentious area with a number of high profile cases highlighting unreliable “scientific” expert evidence, leading to appeals and acquittals. The purpose of this paper is to argue for improvement in the assessment of expert evidence reliability to avoid such difficulties. Design/methodology/approach – A review of the area focused on the history of developing legal criteria for admitting “scientific” evidence. It examined the benefits and difficulties of approaches, and proposes an amendment to criteria for increased transparency and evidenced decision making. Findings – The review indicated a range of difficulties with “expert” evidence admissibility, including inconsistency, an over-focus on narrow elements of evidence, difficulties in interpretation, and the potential to unfairly restrict evidence. An alternative to current approaches is proposed. This takes the form of a two-stage approach to consider whether or not to admit expert evidence. It comprises a preparation and an examination stage. The former seeks to critically review the evidence and define its nature. The latter applies two sets of criteria; a Daubert application for generally accepted physical sciences, and proposes an Abridged-Daubert for novel and social/behavioural sciences. Also proposed is increased involvement by experts in critically reviewing their own evidence and in providing statements of limitations. Practical implications – The paper concludes by outlining the importance of developing such an approach for the UK legal system. It focuses on the application of specific criterion which could assist both Courts and witnesses to evaluate the quality of evidence prior to submission by accounting for the nature of the opinion evidence provided. Originality/value – The paper outlines a practical approach to examining evidence which has benefit to practitioners and advocates when opinion evidence is outlined.

Evidentiary instructions improve mock juror assessment of feature-comparison evidence

“…In the first case, R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, ear print evidence was admitted because two experts proffered it to be reliable, rigorous and of the highest scientific quality (Ireland & Beaumont, 2015). The judge stated that the expert testimony should be considered sufficient evidence for a conviction if the jurors accepted the testimony provided by the first of the two experts, who reportedly was absolutely convinced that the ear print found on a window at the crime scene matched the suspect's ear.…”

“…The extent to which the courts scrutinise the reliability and validity of scientific evidence, and by which criteria they assess reliability to begin with, thus remains unclear (Ormerod & Sturman, 2005). A plethora of cases exist in which questionable scientific evidence significantly influenced final verdicts to, on appeal, be considered unreliable or at least to require special consideration (Ireland & Beaumont, 2015).…”

“…It was decided in R v Robb (1991) that general acceptance is not a necessity for the admissibility of expert testimony as long as the evidence is sufficiently established to be reliable (Ebisike, 2008). However, a new hurdle arose with the increased introduction of novel techniques as it became apparent that courts had at times failed to give new techniques the focused attention they warrant (Ireland & Beaumont, 2015;Ormerod & Sturman, 2005). One of the dangers of introducing novel techniques is that, as there are fewer experts to call upon, the expert in question may be subjected to less effective challenge and the evidence may be afforded a disproportionate weight (Ormerod & Sturman, 2005).…”

Introduction of forensic expertise quality control in Bosnia and Herzegovina

“…Stoga je poželjno predvidjeti i uvesti u sistematizacije svih forenzičkih institucija u BiH tu poziciju, a po linijama rada predvidjeti 15 Dio projekta EMFA-2 bili su i forenzički centri MUP-a Republike Srbije i MUP-a Republike Crne Gore, koji su navedeni projekat uspješno okončali, te stekli akreditaciju po standardu ISO 17025 (Bjelovuk, Kesić, Radosavljević-Stevanović, 2013).…”

Metric Identification of the Same People from Images: How Reliable Is It?

“…In order to accept a testimony of identification in a court of law, it should adhere to the Daubert criteria [1][2][3]. The Daubert criteria aim to make testimonies of expert witnesses as reliable as possible by ensuring that they are peer reviewed, repeatedly tested, have a known error rate, and are based on sufficient facts or data.…”