Expert evidence is a contentious area with a number of high profile cases highlighting the unreliable nature of some ‘scientific’ expert evidence. This presentation will outline historical challenges with such evidence, outline how the area has developed and make some recommendations for amendment. A review of relevant cases and literature will be presented which highlights difficulties such as:
- An over-focus on narrow elements of evidence;
- Difficulties in interpretation;
- A potential restriction of evidence.
It is argued that ‘scientific’ evidence cannot be considered homogenous and one set of criterion could never be deemed acceptable for both. Indeed, a two stage approach for admissibility is considered; a preparation and an examination stage. The former seeks to critically review the evidence and define its nature. The latter then applies two sets of criteria; a Daubert application for generally accepted physical sciences and 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.
The presentation concludes by focusing on application of these specific criteria 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.
The next seminar will be presented by Professor Jane Louise Ireland, Professor in Psychology (Chair), School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, UK, will take place in CCE 1 403 on Wednesday October 22nd from 17.00-19.00.
Event detailsCity Campus East Northumbria Law School Room 403 NE1 8ST In order to register, please send an email to email@example.com.
Source: The Society for Legal Scholars newsletter.
Click here for additional information.
This post will expire at 10:10am on Thursday October 23rd, 2014