Forensic scientists are 'improperly' swaying juries warns senior British judge

One of the country’s most senior judges yesterday launched a scathing attack on forensic scientists and their methods. Trial juries can be ‘improperly influenced’ when confident and convincing experts give evidence that damns a suspect, Lord Justice Leveson said.

He cast doubt on the reliability of DNA evidence and even the use by the courts of fingerprints – a method of identifying criminals that has been relied on by detectives and lawyers for a century.

The judge called for a system of accreditation to make sure that forensic experts are properly qualified, warning that at present ‘anyone could set themselves up as a forensic science expert and produce evidence that, at best, is unhelpful and, at worst, positively misleading’.

Lord Justice Leveson delivered his criticisms to a gathering of forensic experts at a time of growing controversy over the way science is used in court to sway juries.

The popularity of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation TV show has been linked to a drop in the number of guilty verdicts delivered by juries. Showbiz glamour is also said to be a reason why last year 285 forensic science courses were on offer to students in British universities. Some of these, critics say, fail to teach ‘the most rudimentary science skills’.

Lord Justice Leveson also spoke at length of the notorious cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, both of whom were wrongly jailed for murdering their children. In both cases, the mothers were convicted on the evidence of paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow.

The judge said that in the Cannings case the expert evidence should not have been relied on. And in the case of Sally Clark, he said ‘the statistical evidence given by Professor Meadow was plainly not within the area of his expertise’ and should have been challenged.

Solicitor Mrs Clark died in 2007 of acute alcohol poisoning, four years after she had been released from jail.

Lord Justice Leveson added: ‘There exists a real difficulty that just because an expert’s evidence is presented as scientific it may be taken to be reliable.’

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here