The standards governing the admissibility of expert evidence in the courts of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have been increasingly scrutinized over the last few decades. Each jurisdiction has its unique wrinkles, with some (United States) having more exacting standards, particularly in terms of the attention paid to the proffered expert and their opinion, than others (Australia). Nonetheless, there are similarities. And each nation’s courts have addressed concerns, to varying degrees, over issues such as validity, reliability, expert qualification, the need for expertise, whether the proffered opinion will assist the trier of fact and, of course, relevance.
This chapter thoroughly explores and analyses the development and specific requirements of each nation’s standards. Topics of particular interest include:
In addition to detailed coverage of these topics, case vignettes and research are also provided that illustrate: (1) how courts function effectively and fairly when only valid, reliable and relevant expertise is admitted; (2) the ongoing failure of judges and lawyers to become scientifically literate; and (3) the serial injustices that have occurred as a result of the introduction of junk science in courtrooms. With a thorough review of the relevant scholarly literature and governmental commissions, reports and law from each of the four subject jurisdictions, the Expert Evidence in Courts chapter is an invaluable resource for litigators and potential experts alike.
