Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a tr...Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a trial judge to get an answer to the question about the reliability and credibility of expert evidence.The process of judicial scrutiny of the expert evidence is challenging in the absence of national guidelines/standards,nonaccreditation of crime laboratories,and poor scientific knowledge of judges and lawyers.Therefore,the judges encounter difficulty in evaluating the knowledge and skills of an expert,validity of principles and methodologies used,application of quality management system,relatability,and reliability of expert evidence.While facing difficulty in ascertaining the level of certitude of expert evidence,the courts accept the expert testimony only when it corroborates the prosecution's propositions,which is a kind of disservice to justice.The reliance of courts on expert evidence varies from case to case,which can be observed in the form of many sporadic judicial decisions.展开更多
This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, enco...This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, encompassing a variety of issues and debates concerning the ways in which forensic science evidence is validated, generated, presented, tested, evaluated and utilised in criminal proceedings. Common law evidentiary principles governing the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert witness testimony are reviewed and the underlying assumptions and potential weaknesses of adversarial trial procedure are critically considered. The discussion is pitched at the generic level of recurring intellectual puzzles, institutional design, regulatory frameworks, procedural structures and processes, macro-policy choices and methodological prescriptions, with the intention of making it relevant to an international audience. Aspects of the procedural law and adjudicative practice of England and Wales, and the regulatory context of UK forensic science, are offered as concrete illustrations with the potential for illuminating comparative extrapolation to other legal systems. In conclusion, the article draws out specific implications for Chinese scholarship, law reform and policymaking in relation to scientific and other expert evidence, and advances a bold suggestion for entertaining an unconventionally expansive conception of ＂forensic science＂ and, correspondingly, of the challenges it presents.展开更多
文摘Expert evidence is admissible under articles 59 and 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance,1984(Law of Evidence),in the courts of law in Pakistan.However,the enacted laws and judicial precedents are inadequate to help a trial judge to get an answer to the question about the reliability and credibility of expert evidence.The process of judicial scrutiny of the expert evidence is challenging in the absence of national guidelines/standards,nonaccreditation of crime laboratories,and poor scientific knowledge of judges and lawyers.Therefore,the judges encounter difficulty in evaluating the knowledge and skills of an expert,validity of principles and methodologies used,application of quality management system,relatability,and reliability of expert evidence.While facing difficulty in ascertaining the level of certitude of expert evidence,the courts accept the expert testimony only when it corroborates the prosecution's propositions,which is a kind of disservice to justice.The reliance of courts on expert evidence varies from case to case,which can be observed in the form of many sporadic judicial decisions.
文摘This article investigates what might be characterised as ＂the forensic challenge＂ for criminal adjudication and clarifies its nature and scope. The ＂challenge＂ identified is complex, dynamic and multifaceted, encompassing a variety of issues and debates concerning the ways in which forensic science evidence is validated, generated, presented, tested, evaluated and utilised in criminal proceedings. Common law evidentiary principles governing the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert witness testimony are reviewed and the underlying assumptions and potential weaknesses of adversarial trial procedure are critically considered. The discussion is pitched at the generic level of recurring intellectual puzzles, institutional design, regulatory frameworks, procedural structures and processes, macro-policy choices and methodological prescriptions, with the intention of making it relevant to an international audience. Aspects of the procedural law and adjudicative practice of England and Wales, and the regulatory context of UK forensic science, are offered as concrete illustrations with the potential for illuminating comparative extrapolation to other legal systems. In conclusion, the article draws out specific implications for Chinese scholarship, law reform and policymaking in relation to scientific and other expert evidence, and advances a bold suggestion for entertaining an unconventionally expansive conception of ＂forensic science＂ and, correspondingly, of the challenges it presents.
