ABSTRACT
The Atkins appeal addresses the way a photo comparison expert might express a subjective opinion. ‘Opinion based upon identifiable expertise outside the experience of the jury is one exception’. English courts have not consistently required ‘knowledge’ or ‘reliability’ before admitting incriminating opinions in serious criminal proceedings. Facial mappers may choose to employ the Michael C. Bromby scale in an attempt to make their opinion appear more scientific. In the end the inability to overcome distortion in conjunction with the lack of a database means that all the witness can say is that in his opinion parts of the mouth, nose and chin appear similar in these partial, poorly resolved images. The inability to explain how ‘risk factors’ are credibly managed means that additional ‘tests’ merely compound the existing limitations or inspire inappropriate confidence rather than provide additional or independent checks.
