Listen to more podcasts from the School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London.
Never before has expert evidence found itself on shakier ground. Legal practitioners are questioning its value, scholars its character, the Law Commission its admissibility and the courts its parameters. Who are lawyers to judge science and how might they do it? What is the future of expert evidence?
In April 2011 the Law Commission warned the government of an urgent need to avert the pressing danger of wrongful convictions by reforming the law on expert evidence. On 9 June 2011, policy advisors, leading academics and practitioners gathered to discuss the future of expert evidence at a Queen Mary Criminal Justice Centre conference.
Key concerns to emerge from the proceedings include the danger posed by the rapid commercialisation of forensic science and the unreliability of much of the expertise presently being relied upon.
Introduction [Podcast MP3 3mins 2MB]
Chaired by Professor Peter Alldridge, Queen Mary, University of London
Commission Report No. 325 [Podcast MP3 30.59 mins 21MB]
Professor David Ormerod, Law Commissioner
Doubting Daubert [Podcast MP3 20.30 mins 14MB]
Associate Professor Andrew Roberts, University of Warwick
Gauging Science [Podcast MP3 20 mins 13MB]
Professor Allan Jamieson, The Forensic Institute
Expert Evidence of Drug Traces [Podcast MP3 22 mins 15MB]
Amber Marks, Queen Mary, University of London
Chaired by Professor Jenny McEwan, Exeter University
*The Strength and Weight of Expert Opinion [Podcast MP3 17.58 mins 12MB]
Dr Tony Ward, University of Hull (*starts 2 mins in)
Objectivity, Subjectivity, Reliability [Podcast MP3 23.20 mins 16MB]
Professor Mike Redmayne, LSE
How Far Should We Go With Forensic Science? [Podcast MP3 22.39 mins 15MB]
Jane Hickman, Hickman & Rose Solicitors
Shaking Up the Experts [Podcast MP3 18.09 mins 12MB]
Michael Topolski QC, Tooks Chambers
Read more about the Criminal Justice Centre at Queen Mary, University of London.