Impact of the Adversarial Legal System on Forensic Evidence and Jury Comprehension in the United Kingdom
The Adversarial Judicial System in the United Kingdom
An adversarial judicial system is a common approach to common law in the United Kingdom. It is characterized by two parties opposed to each other presenting their argument and potential evidence to a judge who acts as a neutral person for a sound decision on the matter. In the United Kingdom, an adversarial system is often employed in criminal trials where the defense and prosecution are given a chance to present their arguments before a judge to decide whether the defendant is guilty.
This system is also applied in civil cases in the United Kingdom. In civil cases, it allows the two opposing sides to defend their arguments before the jury makes the decision. One of the key features of the adversarial trial system is that each party involved in a case is solely responsible for the presentation of their cases, and it is up to each party to look for evidence that would back their argument before the jury.
Another key feature of the system is that the jury or the judge acts as a referee and has to remain neutral throughout the trial. The main role of the jury in this system is to assess the evidence tabled before them by both sides and decide on the facts of the case. This trial system is intended to ensure fairness in legal trials as it gives each side involved the opportunity to present their arguments backed by sufficient evidence for the judgment to be made by an impartial party. This legal system is the central aspect of the United Kingdom law and has strengths and weaknesses. This paper will examine how the adversarial system of trial affects how useful forensic evidence is for the jury in the United Kingdom.
Impact of the System on Expert Witness Testimony
Expert witness testimony is a useful aspect of criminal law in the United Kingdom. An expert witness is considered a person who has specialized in a given field and has sufficient expertise in a given area important to a given criminal case. They are considered important to a case as they can assist the jury in understanding complex issues and technical matters that are way above common knowledge. They often provide evidence on various topics depending on their specialization. They include doctors, engineers, psychologists, and forensic scientists, among other professions.
Expert witness testimony in a criminal trial in the United Kingdom can have a massive influence on the usefulness of forensic evidence to the jury. In common law, forensic evidence is always considered objective and scientifically reliable; thus, expert witness testimony is vital for the jury to understand the technical details and context of the evidence. Section 30 of the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act of 1988 states, “An expert’s report is admissible as evidence of fact and opinion, whether or not the expert attends court to give oral evidence.” This act indicates how expert opinion is highly regarded in the United Kingdom’s justice system.
One of the impacts of expert witness testimony in the United Kingdom’s legal system can be demonstrated by the case of R v Doheny, which took place in 1996. The defendant faced accusations of rape before Lord Justice Philip in the court of appeal of the criminal division. The prosecution relied upon the forensic evidence to prove that the defendant did rape Regina. They relied on the result obtained by conducting a DNA test of the defendant against the sample of the evidence left at the crime scene to conclude whether the defendant committed the crime. The DNA samples were obtained from the blood sample the appellant provided. The expert witnesses involved in the case helped the jury understand the technical aspect of the scientific evidence presented before them and the importance of the laboratory findings in the case. Ultimately, the defendant was convicted based on the forensic evidence and testimony of the expert witnesses.
The case R v Canning, which occurred in 2004, is another good example of the role of expert witness testimony in a criminal trial. The defendant was accused of suffocating her two infant babies to death. In this case, the jury also relied upon the expert witness to determine the case. This case involved scientific analysis, including post-mortem and statistical analysis of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). SIDS was involved in the case to prove to the jury that the death of the babies was unnatural and resulted from deliberate suffocation.
In the case, the jury allowed the expert witnesses to testify about the presented forensic evidence, including the reliability of the post-mortem examination and the analysis of the SIDS cases. In this case, the expert witnesses’ testimony was essential to the jury as it enabled them to understand the technical aspects of the presented evidence. Based on the expert testimony, Angela Canning was freed as the jury concluded that the evidence presented to the other party was inconclusive.
Both the cases mentioned above explain how expert witness testimony plays an important role in the practicality of forensic evidence for the judge. In the two cases, expert witnesses enabled the jury to properly understand the technical forensic evidence to determine their limitations and details, which is important in making informed decisions. However, the expert witness can also be challenged to determine their credibility; therefore, it is up to the judge to determine the credibility of the testimony.
Impact of the System on Cross-Examination of Witness
In the United Kingdom, where the adversarial justice system plays an important role in criminal and civil law, witness cross-examination often occurs in court. In this justice system, cross-examination is critical for defense lawyers in determining the credibility and reliability of the forensic evidence presented before the judge. It allows the defense team to question the testimonies provided by the witness in the case. In the processes, they can identify the inconsistencies or weaknesses of evidence against the accused.
During the cross-examination process, the defendant’s lawyer or defense lawyer is allowed to question the witnesses about the evidence. This elicits information that might favor their case while undermining the credibility of the evidence presented by the witnesses in the case, as explained earlier. However, it is critical to note that cross-examination is a guided process subject to rules of evidence and ethics. It is guided so that the defense counsel is not allowed an opportunity for a free-for-all attack on the witness, is required to ask relevant questions, and is not allowed by the rules to harass the witnesses.
As described, cross-examination exposes errors or inconsistencies in the forensic evidence provided by the witnesses. The United Kingdom case of R v Dallagher of 2002 demonstrated the role of cross-examination in exposing errors that may have gone unnoticed during pre-trials or the initial presentation of the case. In this case, the cross-examination result led to the defendant’s acquittal of the charges. In this case, the defendant was charged with murder and was convicted in 1998. He later appealed the case, and the expert witnesses were cross-examined, exposing the inconsistency in the evidence they provided.
In the adversarial system of trial, like in the United Kingdom, cross-examination can potentially impact the usefulness of forensic evidence to the jury. It can expose inconsistencies or errors and sometimes potentially discredit relevant forensic evidence. Therefore, the jury can rely upon cross-examination results to determine whether the evidence is valid or fabricated and reach a verdict based on their analysis of the evidence.
Impact of Biases on the System
The adversarial legal system presents both the defendant and the grieved with equal opportunity to argue their cases before a neutral party, often the judge. However, this system is sometimes affected by the jury’s bias, which sometimes influences the trial’s outcome. One of the notable ways bias can influence a case’s outcome in the adversarial system is by selecting judges to listen to a case. In this system, the jury is required to be impartial and represent both parties in the case. Sometimes, during the selection of the judges’ biases such as racism, classism, and sexism play a critical role in leading a biased bench that cannot make an objective decision.
Another way biases play an important role in affecting the adversarial system practiced in the United Kingdom is through the presentation of the evidence. This occurs when each party has its expert witness who testifies in a case and presents their evidence selectively to anchor their arguments. This can lead to a biased presentation as each team might only present the part of the evidence that favors their clients, making it difficult for the jury to make an informed decision.
Bias can also influence the jury’s interpretation of evidence. This can happen due to personal biases such as discrimination and preconceptions, which can affect how a judge interprets the evidence and the law, resulting in a biased decision. In the United Kingdom, there are cases where biases have played a critical role in the use of forensic evidence in the trial.
The case R v Sally Clark of 1999 is a good example of how bias has played a critical role in the presentation of forensic evidence. Sally Clark was a lawyer and was convicted of murdering her two sons. The prosecution depended heavily on the statistical evidence to prosecute the case. The data by the prosecution suggested that the probability of the two babies dying suddenly in the same family was very low. However, the jury later found that the data presented by the prosecution were insufficient, and her conviction was overturned. The case of Sally suggests that biases can influence the utilization of forensic evidence in trials and that it is critical for the prosecution to present evidence objectively and accurately.
Another case that shows how bias can influence prosecution is the case of R v Dallagher. In this case, the expert witnesses who were involved exaggerated the forensic evidence, which later led to the conviction of the accused. This case demonstrates how biases led to tampering with forensic evidence and led the jury to commit a wrongful conviction.
Bias also plays a critical role in experts’ interpretation of evidence and its presentation before the jury. This is demonstrated by the case of R v Canning, who was the defendant in killing her babies. In this case, the expert witness from the prosecution team gave forensic evidence that indicated that the deaths of the two babies were caused by suffocation based on the finding of flawed research. The conviction of Canning was later overturned by the court, as previously explained. This case demonstrates the significance of objective and accurate presentation of forensic evidence before a jury to avoid wrongful convictions and ensure justice is served.
Impact of the System on Jury Comprehension of Evidence
Comprehension of the jury is a critical factor in the adversarial system of trial in any country that practices this system. It can affect the usefulness of forensic evidence for the bench of judges or the judge. Forensic evidence often involves knowledge from different disciplines and is complex and technical. If the judges do not fully comprehend the presented evidence, they may have difficulty making an informed decision while relying on such evidence.
One of the notable cases where the jury failed to comprehend the evidence presented before them was the case of R v Mitchel and others in 2009. The defendant, in this case, was charged with criminal offenses which involved robbery and murder, which occurred in Northern Ireland. The case involved DNA and fibre analysis, on which the prosecution relied heavily to link the defendant to the crime scene. However, during the hearing, the jury struggled to comprehend the scientific nature of the forensic evidence offered by the prosecution.
The judges’ inability to comprehend the technical aspects of forensic evidence affected their ability to evaluate it and make informed decisions. Ultimately, the judges involved could convict one person and acquit the other two. This case demonstrated how challenging judges to comprehend technical forensic evidence is.
Another case that demonstrates a lack of technical comprehension of forensic evidence by the jury is the case of R v Mark Dixie of 2008. In this case, the defendant was charged with murdering and sexually assaulting Sally Bowman. In the case, the prosecution relied heavily on the DNA analysis of the blood samples obtained at the crime scene. During the trial, the bench of judges demonstrated their lack of comprehension of the technical forensic evidence. The bench struggled to understand the DNA evidence presented by expert witnesses.
In the case, the defense lawyer challenged the reliability and credibility of the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution. The jury ruled by acquitting the accused on the murder charges; however, they convicted him on other charges. This case demonstrates that a lack of understanding of the technical forensic evidence presented by the prosecution may have influenced the jury to acquit the defendant of the murder charge.
Reference List
Carroll C., ‘Accessing Rights and Mitigating Revictimization: The Role of the Victim’s Legal Counsel in the Swedish Criminal Justice System’ Violence Against Women, vol. 28, no.1, 2021, pp. 255-276. Web.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 s. 30
Kendall S., ‘Reconceptualising Reforms to Cross-Examination: Extending the Reliability Revolution Beyond the Forensic Sciences’, Canberra Law Review, vol. 18, no. 1, 2021. Web.
Lens V., ‘Judging the other: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and Class in Family Court’, Family Court Review, vol. 57, no. 1, 2019, pp. 72-87. Web.
R v Cannings (2004) EWCA Crim 1.
R v Doheny (1996) 2 Cr App R 286.
R v Mark Dixie (2008) EWCA Crim 2429.
R v Mitchell and Others (2009) EWCA Crim 1880.
R v Sally (2003) EWCA Crim 1020, (2003) EWCA Crim 216.
Regina v Dallagher (2002) EWCA Crim 1903.