---

Forensic Science

: I fully accept those points, and they are on the record. I was interested to read in The Times of 7 March this year a letter written by Patrick Phillips QC:"““If one examines early cases when ‘experts' were involved, they were invariably leading (and often outstanding) practitioners. Nowadays this is rarely the case, and the ‘forensic expert', who practises little but earns most of a living from giving evidence, holds sway to the detriment of the whole process””." A leading QC is concerned about how forensic evidence is presented in court and who presents it; Parliament should listen to such people, as well as to the conclusions of Committees such as ours. Most of the rest of the judicial process is under review; why cannot the way that evidence is presented in court also be reviewed? Are judges and juries impressed by the reputation and qualifications—nay, even the charisma—of expert witnesses more than by the evidence that they present? I wonder. Do judges and juries or solicitors and barristers understand all the scientific evidence? Given the ever-accelerating pace of technology, has the time come to require training for all those involved in court practices, so that justice can be seen to be done in Britain and we can avoid the mistakes—there have been too many—that have already occurred? Our report has attempted to answer some of those questions. We suggested that the prosecution and defence expert witnesses should always, not sometimes, meet out of court to decide on areas of agreement and disagreement. Those areas of disagreement, of course, would be debated in court, and I would fully support that. Like our Chairman, I feel that the Government should look at the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prevents us from carrying out research on how juries reach their decisions and whether they understand the extent of the evidence—particularly the forensic science evidence. I urge the Minister to consider amending the 1981 Act so that we can do such research. I realise that my point is extremely controversial and would have a lot of opposition. However, if we are to know whether justice is being carried out, we need to know whether juries are being led along the right route, whether the right evidence is before them and whether one man or woman guides the rest of the jury, as can often happen. We need to know what happens within those closed four walls.