Playing dice with expert evidence: the lessons to emerge from Regina v. Chamberlain

P. Gerber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1987.tb133420.x

1987-09-01

Abstract:T here can be little doubt that the role of the expert witness in criminal trials post-Splatt and post-Chamberlain has, in this country at least, been compromised severely. In the case of Splatt, who was convicted by a jury in South Australia in 1977 on a charge of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, the conviction was obtained predominantly on scientific testimony which, in 1984,a Royal Commissioner found to be highlydangerous and unsatisfactory in that it drew conclusions beyond that which the scientificevidencecould establish.I History was destined to repeat itself in the Chamberlain case, where much of the scientificevidence that was given at the trial subsequently has been found to be wrong or has been seriously questioned. For example, the blood-curdling rhetoric of Senior Counsel for the Crown, Mr Ian Barker, QC notwithstanding, The Honourable Mr Justice Morling (Royal Commissioner), in his Inquiry into the Chamberlain convictions, has now expressed grave doubts whether there was ever any blood under the dashboard, and to the extent that it was suggested at the trial that the floor of the car was awash with blood, it has now been established that the reactions that were obtained from the particular screening test may not have been with blood and that, if they were with blood, it may have been present only in the most minute quantities.' Indeed, it is fair comment to observe that each and everyone of the incriminating "facts", that were said to have been established by scientifictestimony at the trial, have now been shown to have gone beyond the safe boundaries of scientific evidence so as to render the convictions of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain unsafe and unsatisfactory.