A tale of two approaches - the NAS report and the Law Commission consultation paper on forensic science

Rhonda M Wheate, Allan Jamieson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of "scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the "science" underlying forensic science.
LanguageEnglish
Number of pages25
JournalInternational Commentary on Evidence
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Sep 2009

Fingerprint

Law
science
prosecution
legal proceedings
Academy of Sciences
evidence
acceptance
regime
expert
experience

Keywords

  • forensic
  • science
  • expert
  • evidence
  • validation
  • accreditation
  • opinion

Cite this

@article{db8c5cb432384e1295833d69cbb73383,
title = "A tale of two approaches - the NAS report and the Law Commission consultation paper on forensic science",
abstract = "Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of {"}scientific{"} evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the {"}science{"} underlying forensic science.",
keywords = "forensic, science, expert, evidence, validation, accreditation, opinion",
author = "Wheate, {Rhonda M} and Allan Jamieson",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "30",
doi = "10.2202/1554-4567.1110",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
number = "2",

}

A tale of two approaches - the NAS report and the Law Commission consultation paper on forensic science. / Wheate, Rhonda M; Jamieson, Allan.

Vol. 7, No. 2, 30.09.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A tale of two approaches - the NAS report and the Law Commission consultation paper on forensic science

AU - Wheate, Rhonda M

AU - Jamieson, Allan

PY - 2009/9/30

Y1 - 2009/9/30

N2 - Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of "scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the "science" underlying forensic science.

AB - Recent publications from the National Academy of Science (USA) and the Law Commission (UK) provide an interesting contrast in approach to well documented and historic problems with the use of "scientific" evidence in legal proceedings. The NAS recommends a thorough assessment of the scientific bases of forensic science, to discern and improve the validity of the science before it can be considered suitable for court purposes. The UK approach more tentatively examines the legal admissibility of forensic science, leaving aside the more fundamental questions as to the inherent unreliability of the evidence. Drawing upon the American report and current experience in the UK, this paper proposes a more robust admissibility regime in the UK, including recognition and acceptance of the different roles of the prosecution and defence expert; more thorough and less combative disclosure by the prosecution; wider availability of validation data; and greater legal and research support for the thorough review of the "science" underlying forensic science.

KW - forensic

KW - science

KW - expert

KW - evidence

KW - validation

KW - accreditation

KW - opinion

U2 - 10.2202/1554-4567.1110

DO - 10.2202/1554-4567.1110

M3 - Article

VL - 7

IS - 2

ER -