Having just
completed a report on a case where DNA transfer was one issue and re-reading
Christophe Champod’s review in Forensic Genetics (Champod 2013) brings to mind an additional
point in the “experience v scholarship” debate; the ethical responsibility/duty
of a forensic scientist acting as an expert witness.
Courts, particularly
in England and Wales, have made it clear through a number of judgements (R v Reed, Reed
& Garmson 2010) (R v Weller 2010) that opinions supported
only by the experience of the expert witness are admissible and will be given
weight (twas ever thus).
Numerous authorities
(Champod 2013) have also made it clear
that expert opinion based solely on experience puts justice at risk.
Even if courts
will hear such evidence it is right for scientists to offer non-scientific evidence?
In the absence of relevant research and scholarship surely the only answer the scientist
can give is that science cannot help.
Furthermore, in
the absence of relevant research and scholarship, is the forensic scientist better
placed than the fact-finder to evaluate propositions?
Given the plethora
of codes of conduct/practice and regulatory frameworks that now exist it surprises
me that the questionably ethical practice of offering fact-finders non-scientific
evidence has not been identified as malpractice and sanctions put in place.
Champod, Christophe. “DNA transfer: informed
judgment or mere guesswork?” Frontiers in Genetics, 2013: 1-3.
R v Reed
& Reed & Garmson.
Crim 2698 (EWCA, 2010).
R v
Weller. Crim 1085 (EWCA,
2010).
