ABSTRACT
Within the modern judicial system, the previously blind acceptance of science has evolved into an equally sceptical view, and scientists of all disciplines, who present evidence within the judicial system, must be prepared to defend their techniques and demonstrate the sound scientific principles upon which they are based [5-8]. Nowhere is this the case more so than the United States, where specific legislation, in the form of the Daubert ruling, has enlisted the Judge as a scientific ‘‘gatekeeper’’ whose function is to assess the scientific integrity of the evidence (rather than the individual presenting that evidence) and determine if it should be heard. While the U.S. judiciary has taken the lead in this area, examples can be found within Commonwealth and European law mirroring the spirit of the Daubert philosophy.
