Your leader on expert evidence only touches the surface of the problems surrounding the presentation of expert evidence in Scottish courts ("Bringing expert minds to bear on the law", April 20).
Although defective testimony represents a small minority of the total, tragically it can lead to the innocent being deemed guilty and the guilty remaining undetected and unpunished. The financial costs are enormous. The costs in human terms are incalculable.
Inefficient scenes of crime procedures, defective analysis by forensic scientists and a failure by prosecution and defence lawyers to ensure the quality of their experts and the relevance of their testimony all contribute to a growing problem. Laissez-faire judges who will not or cannot act as gatekeepers to expert evidence and provide guidance to uncomprehending juries only serve to compound matters.
Lessons are not being learned. Dubious fingerprint evidence nearly condemned my daughter, Shirley McKie, to prison and yet many of the recommendations of the resultant £5 million public inquiry gather dust on the shelves of those responsible for implementing them.
As the Kimberley Hainey case dramatically shows, the appeal judge's "quack" comments can divert attention from these continuing system failures and unfairly put at risk the reputations of the many skilled and dedicated experts whose testimony can play a vital part in ascertaining guilt or innocence. How much longer will these experts accept this lottery with their livelihoods?
The old checks, balances, systems and procedures for evaluating forensic evidence are no longer effective. We require to develop a consensus among those who manage our justice system that change is necessary and must be realistically funded. The Law Society, Faculty for Advocates, Crown Office, Judicial Institute and politicians all need to sit up, take notice and implement training programmes and procedure reviews aimed at ensuring that in Scotland expert evidence can be relied upon to deliver justice for all concerned.
Iain A J McKie,
27 Donnini Court,
South Beach Road,
Ayr.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article