Forensic reconstruction of past event is often complex and fraught with uncertainties in the quest for the ultimate truth. Technological advances and man’s ingenuity in different areas of endeavours including crime have presented challenges and novel situations which the legal practitioners had to grapple with in the adjudicatory process. Given these dynamic factors, the courts often have to resort to diverse and disparate disciplines to provide ‘valued’ expertise in matters considered to be outside the ambit of the fact-finder in their fact-finding enterprise.
Experts sometimes forget that their ultimate duty is to the court and must be independent and objective, irrespective of being contracted by a party.
Article Expert Witness: How Safe Is Safety in Numbers?
The issue here is the definition of an "expert". Before "expert" accounts or 'testimony' can be validated, ergo provisionally believed, one must fully explain what qualifies a person as an "expert' in the first place, and why this individual in question qualifies.
I appreciate that this is an important aspect of the process. However, what happens when experts of comparable standing qr qualification, experience, etc--reach very different conclusions as often the case in adversarial system?
There is currently a major project underway to define the role of the expert right across the EU. At our next meeting next month we are discussing the very issue of appointing multiple experts to guide a court on issues with several different issues. We are also looking at qualification, competence and accreditation and how this contributes to the ability of the expert to guide the court. I am very happy to share the information on these subjects.
See the website for the European Expertise and Expert Institute.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Anatomy
- Tissue