Law of Evidence - Reliability and relevance Essay

Law of Evidence - Reliability and relevance - Essay Example Evidence can only be deemed to be relevant if it is used to prove or disprove a matter that is in issue before the court. Evidence adduced with the intention of causing the jury to disapprove of the defendant is generally inadmissible, unless it is properly presented as evidence of bad character to show the propensity of the defendant to a particular kind of crime. Since scientific evidence is a specific area of expertise it is essential that the person giving evidence relating to scientific findings is suitably qualified, and that the evidence can be relied upon in order to secure a conviction. It is not always easy to draw a distinction between a person who is giving an expert opinion as opposed to evidence of fact1 . The Criminal Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) were reformed in order to restrict the usage of expert evidence2. CPR r 35.1 states that ‘expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.’ One of the dangers asso ciated with the reliance of expert opinion is that miscarriages of justice may occur as a direct result. ... This case was very similar to R v Clark (no2) [2003]4 in which the evidence of the same expert used in the Cannings case was regarded as reliable, resulting in the conviction of Clark for the murder of her 2 children. Professor Meadow, the expert in these cases was at the time carrying out a government funded report into the causes of sudden infant death. At the trial Professor Meadow made the observation that the chances of 2 children dying of cot death within Clark’s family situation could be compared to the chances of 4 different horses winning the Grand National in consecutive years at odds of 80 to 1. As a result of the elevated status of Professor Meadow as an expert in this field the jury concluded that the deaths could not have been natural causes. The courts have struggled consistently with the testing of expert evidence as there is no compulsory requirement for accreditation of the qualifications of the expert. There is also a lack of training for judges and barriste rs in the understanding of expert evidence, as well as training in judging the reliability of such evidence. In a report conducted by the House of Commons into the reliability of expert forensic evidence the report expressed concern that when the Forensic Science Service moved to the private sector the police service would no longer be able to ask the FSS to ‘provide advice as to the reliability of forensic techniques5.’ At present there is no control over the testing of the reliability of expert witnesses, however, the Law Commission have recently tried to address this issue in the Criminal Evidence (experts) Bill which was published 22 March 20116. In this Bill it was recommended that a reliability based admissibility test should be established for