ABSTRACT
The law about expert evidence is unsatisfactory: it gives scope for the expert to usurp the role of judge, jury and parliament; it brings the professions of the experts into disrepute; and it sets juries the impossible task of sorting pseudo sciences from genuine ones. The law should be reformed by changing statutes which force expert witnesses to testify beyond their science, and by removing from the courts the decision whether a nascent discipline is or is not a science. The justification of the admission of expert evidence is clear. There are many matters of specialized knowledge which are relevant to matters at issue before the courts, on which the courts would be unable, to reach a correct conclusion. The inappropriateness of the courtroom as a place for sorting out the difference between genuine and pseudo sciences means that pseudo-experts can impose on juries, while genuine scientists can be made to look fools in cross-examination by smart barristers.
