1. There is no guarantee that the introduction of rules of evidence and gatekeeper functions will eliminate unfailingly the possibility of error in judging admissibility. This might occur infrequently but would interfere with justice if evidence were to be disallowed in court that later transpired to be material to a case.
2. I have been reminded of a procedure used in the French Administrative Court (Conseil d'Etat) that uses an ascending succession of 'rapporteurs' to represent evidence. Modification of the envisaged role for a court-appointed assessor in the present Law Commission consultation would provide for a rapporteur who would give his/her opinion advising the jury during proceedings of the state of scientific research and knowldge concerning the evidentiary issues of a case. This would be in the absence of rules of evidence or gatekeeper functions. The rapporteur would be appointed by the court and would not necessarily comment on the evidence proferred by the parties but would simply inform the jury what can be known in the scientific field concerned. There might be difficulty in locating such a person but the demands on them would not be the same as that placed on expert opinion witnesses. This might at least reduce any confusion for juries resulting from admitting all evidence judged to be relevant into court, a method I still prefer. The rapporteur could be questioned by the judge but not the parties.
[closed]
Admissibility of Scientific Evidence - some after thoughts
(1 post)-
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.