Explaining and trusting expert evidence
What is a ‘sufficiently reliable scientific basis’
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596109 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tony Ward (0000-0002-6292-2364, Northumbria University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 233-254 |
| Publication date | 2020-06-10 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712720927622 |
| OpenAlex | W3022141345 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 41 |
Through a series of judicial decisions and Practice Directions, the English courts have developed a rule that expert evidence must have ‘a sufficiently reliable scientific basis to be admitted’. There is a dearth of case-law as to what degree of reliability is ‘sufficient’. This article argues that the test should be interpreted as analogous to one developed in the law of hearsay: expert evidence (scientific or otherwise) must be ‘potentially safely reliable’ in the context of the evidence as a whole. The implications of this test will vary according to the relationship between the expert evidence and the other evidence in the case. The article identifies three main patterns into which this relationship falls. Whether the jury relies upon the evidence will depend upon what they regard as the best explanation of the evidence and how far they trust the expert. Whether their reliance is safe (as a basis for conviction) depends on whether they could rationally rule out explanations consistent with innocence, and whether the degree to which they take the expert’s evidence on trust is consistent with prosecution’s burden of proving the essential elements of its case, including the reliability of any scientific techniques on which it relies
Context (archaeology · Conviction · Epistemology · Federal Rules of Evidence · Hearsay · Jury · Jury instructions · Political science · Reliability (semiconductor · Scientific evidence · Test (biology · Computer Science · Deception detection and forensic psychology · History · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Psychology
The Exchange of Words
Testimony, Trust, and Authority
Belief's Own Ethics
Truth Machine
Knowledge on Trust
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Critical trust
Law's Looking Glass
Relative plausibility and its critics
Experts and pretenders
A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence
The epistemology of testimony
Fricker on testimonial justification
Reconsidering the role of inference to the best explanation in the epistemology of testimony
Appeals to Reason
Truth-Default Theory (TDT)
| Citations per year | 0.6 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2024 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |