ABSTRACT
This chapter suggests that even if a new reliability standard will bring about a significant improvement in the state of the law there remains, for various reasons, a significant risk that the reliability of much expert opinion evidence will evade rigorous scrutiny. It shows that an approach which provided for engagement with scientists’ views on the reliability of various forms of scientific evidence was rejected too hastily in the Commission’s Consultation Paper and Report. The chapter explores the formation of some form of multi-disciplinary scientific advisory panel to advise on what is empirically known about techniques and methods used in the forensic sciences and, where appropriate, to indicate what studies or measures are required to address deficiencies. It explains why the Commission’s proposals are unlikely to address endemic problems in the forensic sciences, or the inadequacies of the adversarial criminal trial in respect of problematic forms of expert opinion evidence that is adduced or admitted.
