Experts and pretenders: Examining possible responses to misconduct by experts in criminal trials in England and Wales

Abstract

Much academic literature explores the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. However, almost no attention has been paid to misconduct by experts giving evidence in criminal cases. Whilst rare, its serious impact on the administration of justice and public trust in it means that this area requires analysis. This article explores possible responses to expert witness misconduct occurring in the context of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, noting particularly the differences in responses available, depending firstly upon whether the expert is a registered professional, and secondly whether the expert has stepped outside of their expertise; did not have relevant expertise at all, or was dishonest. Professional disciplinary procedures focus on ‘fitness to practise’, and it is argued that this is sufficient where a registered professional has overstepped their expertise, but has not displayed mala fides. On the contrary, where someone gives evidence purporting to have expertise that they do not, or lies about their conduct as an expert in the case, criminal sanctions are available, appropriate, and should be used. These include contempt of court; perverting the course of justice; fraud by false representation, and perjury.

An Appraisal of Cases under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997 and the role of Forensic Evidence

“…It is to argue here that the courts might adopt judicial policy to further discourage the waste of time and to consider giving relief to financial and emotional agony faced by the accused in cases where prosecution did not prove the case beyond doubt for lack of proof of chain of custody, safe custody and safe transmission of samples to the chemical examiner and non-compliance with the CNSR 2001of expert evidence. It is to suggest that the Third Party Cost Order (hereinafter as TPCO) (Freer 2020) might be considered by the court to overcome this non-compliance attitude of forensic or chemical experts. In the same line, if the deficiency in investigation or prosecution of the case has undermined the role of forensic or scientific expert resulting in exclusion of scientific evidence, in that case the Waste Cost Order (hereinafter as WCO) (Freer 2020) can be used for discouraging negligent attitude of prosecution or investigative wing.…”

“…It is to suggest that the Third Party Cost Order (hereinafter as TPCO) (Freer 2020) might be considered by the court to overcome this non-compliance attitude of forensic or chemical experts. In the same line, if the deficiency in investigation or prosecution of the case has undermined the role of forensic or scientific expert resulting in exclusion of scientific evidence, in that case the Waste Cost Order (hereinafter as WCO) (Freer 2020) can be used for discouraging negligent attitude of prosecution or investigative wing. This is also observed that the law relating to detailed legal requirements for forensic or chemical expert report (CNSR 2001) is in line with the recent standards established by judicial considerations in Daubert case (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,1993) which seems to be affirmed in practice by legislative and judicial policy in Pakistan.…”

Judicial Commission Role to Handle Contempt of Court in Indonesia from the Perspective of Islamic Legal Thought

“…Contempt of court crimes is universal, which essentially wants to obstruct the judicial process (Connolly, 2018). There are several forms of Contempt of Court, such as being disrespectful, not being present at the trial, refusing to make judicial decisions, giving perjury, or preventing others from going to court (Button et al, 2018;Connolly, 2018;Freer, 2020;Goodrich, 2018;Wamsley, 2019). In Contempt of Court, the Judicial Commission can advocate for the Judge and report the perpetrator of Contempt of the Court to the authorities.…”