Page 5745 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
8
subconsciously lean towards the party employing them, of greater concern is the fact that forensic experts themselves rarely get the chance to speak to the evidence - their evidence is selected by counsel conducting the examination and cross-examination is usually conducted by a non-expert who is often no competitor. Resolution of this issue may prevent confusing battles between experts which has lengthened trials, produces jury fatigue,, and has resulted in demonstrable miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom and Australia.
THE JURY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF REFORM
19. The traditional restriction of expert evidence to that given by scientists belongs to the late nineteenth century when science was seen as an unquestionable arbiter of issues like biological determinism.12 Recently, expert evidence supporting the notion that battered women.may have behavioural changes such as to affect their cognitive conduct was denied to a jury by a judge at first instance. A reformist South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal has finally put an Australian stamp of approval on the admissibility of expert evidence in what is known as the Battered Wife Syndrome by overturning the judges direction. The patronising magi in which juries are artificially constrained on judicial direction from absorbing good theory to match their own. good sense was well illustrated in this cases Similarly, the conservative and misogyny reluctance to plead the premenstrual syndrome where apparent and dominant in
11 Homo= v me Queen L%repened Court of criminal Appeal (WA) 21 Mar 90 see Neil Morgan 15 Criminal
Lie 70urnmipp 217 219 r
12 "Expert Ewdenoe and de Qom Mdcolm Gray Law Sdcwy-Bulledn 2 Mar 90
13 Queen v Rumjaajx: Queen v Koutinuen (U=V) SA Court of C,runinul Appeal 28 luxe 1991
5745
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .