The briefing note is concerned with the topics of the reliability and admissibility of new science. It focuses specifically on whether a test would be necessary to judge the reliability of a new science in a trial. Evaluation of the reliability of scientific evidence presents a significant challenge for those required to determine the admissibility. In some cases, the science in question is so well established that judges can rely on the fact that the admissibility of evidence based on it has been clearly recognized by the courts in the past. Other cases may not be so clear. Indeed, as it is true for the legal community, the scientific community is always challenged and continues to improve as knowledge and technology do so. This results in …show more content…
Can the Court be fully adequate to judge whether a new science should be admitted and is reliable? With the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, emerged the idea that judges were unable to evaluate the reliability of scientific expert evidence. Thus, it has been understood that lawyers and judges have not received any training in scientific methodology, which would allow them to understand the evidences put forward in court by the experts and judge of their reliability. They are face with difficulty when it comes to judging if a science should be admissible or not. Knowing that the ones in charge of judging of the admissibility of a science are incompetent in doing so for a lack of training, their decision making and discretion is ought to be unwell …show more content…
Regulation is essential to ensure that a minimum of standards and accreditation exist. Police and Criminal Court Act 1984 section 78: Evidence can be refused on the sole reason that it could mislead and distract the jury, resulting in an unfair decision. The role of the court is to promote a fair trail according to the Rule of Law. The use of a third party (someone between the law and the science): informing the jury on the type of science and its reliability, (consensus among experts) which would lead to a discussion between all the parties before the trial where each party can introduce the expert evidence in advance and enabling the court to direct all criterion the experts meet. It enables the jury to report all disagreement in advance. Having someone who knows area, the Law and the science, enable to make it easier for the court to be aware of the science and make them more able to decide. It would render obsolete the critics stated above of the inability of the court due to lack of