Court experts need professional status

Neil Barrett

The world of employment is full of responsible jobs but few carry the degree of responsibility associated with being an expert witness in court. Other types of witness typically present “direct evidence”: things that they observed and that help to establish the facts in a case. These witnesses appear for the prosecution or the defence, are limited in the scope of material they can present, are expected to give their evidence on the basis of questions asked of them, and are not allowed to meet with one another before giving evidence.

By contrast, an expert witness has a much greater degree of freedom. Experts are chosen where the facts in a case require some level of specialist knowledge if they are to be appreciated properly. They must be unbiased and of the appropriate background; have a high level of qualification – academic or based on experience – and be capable of presenting their expertise in an accessible way. More importantly, they are not limited to directly observed facts, but can give their opinion as to the broader implications of any facts presented by them or by other witnesses. To enable this, expert witnesses will often be allowed to attend the entire trial.

Generally there will be two expert witnesses, one for each side. They are allowed to read and criticise one another’s reports and statements, and meet and agree a joint report between the pair of them. They are even allowed to agree on what will and will not be presented to a jury – in effect, steering the jury towards particular opinions and understanding of the issues. Most importantly, although each is paid by their own side, at the time the court sits, expert witnesses are there to assist the judge in understanding the issues.

In computer crime cases, expert witnesses will often be called on to educate the court about the relevant technology, to examine the computer evidence and to form an opinion, and then share that with the jury under cross-examination. This places a huge burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the expert witnesses, given that alleged paedophiles, for example, might be convicted or walk free, based on the quality of those presentations and the validity of the opinions.

Given how important the role is becoming, with all manner of cases now featuring computer derived evidence, it is surprising that there is no agreed standard or qualifications for expert witnesses. But this is set to change.

The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners is enthusiastically canvassing for members among computer experts, and the plan is to establish a professional standard. As a long-time member of the computer expert community, I applaud and recommend this initiative to my colleagues. Such a responsible job deserves a responsible profession, and formal registration goes a long way to achieving this.