Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 October 2022
Expert evidence is an increasingly prominent feature of criminal litigation. Confidence in the reliability of such evidence is therefore vital to the integrity of the justice process. Of late, there have been concerns in most jurisdictions that liberal admissibility standards allow expert evidence of doubtful reliability to be admitted by courts, leading to miscarriages of justice. Consequently, most adversarial common law systems now apply reliability standards to the reception of expert evidence. Malawian law makes provision for the admissibility of expert evidence on mere production if the parties to the case consent. This article critically evaluates this position, arguing that it provides no safeguards for assessing the reliability of expert evidence, thereby making the criminal justice system prone to injustices and challenges related to the use of such evidence. It proceeds to consider how the law and the courts can enhance the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings.
Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of Malawi; PhD scholar at Durham University, UK.
1 Roberts, P and Zuckerman, A Criminal Evidence (2nd ed, 2010, Oxford University Press) at 697Google Scholar.
2 Munday, R Cross and Tapper on Evidence (12th ed, 2010, Oxford University Press) at 535Google Scholar. See also R v Turner [1975] QB 834.
3 Ring, S “Due process and admissibility of expert evidence on recovered memory in historic child sexual abuse cases: Lessons from America” (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Edmond, G “Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (part 1)” (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 30 at 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Cap 8:01.
6 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 477.
7 Ibid.
8 Dr Saulos Chilima & Dr Lazarus Chakwera v Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika & Malawi Electoral Commission Constitutional Reference no 1 of 2019.
9 [1894] 2 QB 768; [1980] 1 WLR 874.
10 Allen, RJ and Nafisi, E “Daubert and its discontents” (2010) 76/1 Brooklyn Law Review 131 at 132Google Scholar.
11 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 477.
12 Ward, T “A new and more rigorous approach to expert evidence in England and Wales” (2015) 19 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 228 at 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 [1975] QB 834.
14 R v Browning [1995] Crim LR 227; R v Land [1998] 1 Cr App R 301; R v Henry [2006] 1 Cr App R 118; R v Wood [1990] Crim LR 264.
15 Dwyer, D The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (2008, Cambridge University Press) at 75–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Id at 75.
17 Menday v Protea Assurance Co Limited [1976] (1) SA 565.
18 Keane, A, Griffiths, J and Mckeown, P The Modern Law of Evidence (8th ed, 2010, Oxford University Press) at 269Google Scholar.
19 Id at 10.
20 Phipson on Evidence (16th ed, 2005, Sweet & Maxwell) at 971.
21 Criminal Appeal Cause no 71 of 2007 (Lilongwe District Registry).
22 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 417.
23 [1964–66] ALR-Mal 38.
24 R v Jafuli [1978–80] ALR-Mal 351.
25 Ward “A new and more rigorous approach”, above at note 12 at 228.
26 Id at 230.
27 Ibid.
28 Id at 232.
29 Edmond, G “Specialised knowledge, the exclusionary discretions and reliability: Reassessing incriminating expert opinion evidence” (2008) 31/1 University of New South Wales Law Journal 1 at 36Google Scholar.
30 Hartshorne, J and Miola, J “Expert evidence: Difficulties and solutions in prosecutions for infant harm” (2010) 30 Legal Studies 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 [1995] 1 Cr App R 82, CA; [2004] 1 ALL ER 725. The same is apparent in other English decisions like Dallagher EWCA Crim 1903; Clark (Sally) (no 2) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020; Harris and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 1980.
32 [2004] 1 ALL ER 725.
33 R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 01, para 178.
34 Ibid.
35 Keane, Griffiths and Mckeown Modern Law of Evidence, above at note 18 at 524.
36 Raitt, F Evidence: Principles, Policy and Practice (2nd ed, 2013, W Green & Son Ltd) at 61Google Scholar.
37 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 471.
38 Raitt Evidence, above at note 36 at 57.
39 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 505.
40 Giannelli, PC “Forensic science: Daubert's failure” (2018) 68 Case Western Reserve Law Review 869 at 933Google Scholar; Kovera, M, Russao, M and McAuliff, B “Assessment of the common sense psychology underlying Daubert” (2002) 8 Psychology, Public Policy and Law 180Google Scholar.
41 Lorandus, D “Expert evidence post-Daubert: The good, the bad and the ugly” (2017) 43/3 Litigation 18Google Scholar.
42 der Walt, L Meintjes-Van “The proof of the pudding: The presentation and proof of expert evidence in South Africa” (2003) 47/1 Journal of African Law 88 at 89Google Scholar.
43 Visser, J “Defence challenges of forensic scientific evidence in criminal proceedings in South Africa” (2015) 28/1 South African Journal of Criminal Justice 24 at 34Google Scholar.
44 Shaw, K “Expert evidence reliability: Time to grasp the nettle” (2011) 75 Journal of Criminal Law 368 at 371Google Scholar.
45 Edmond “Specialised knowledge”, above at note 29 at 37.
46 Giannelli “Forensic science”, above at note 40 at 869.
47 Id at 874 (citing the National Academy of Sciences Forensic Report, 2009).
48 Cooper, J, Bennett, EA and Sukel, HL “Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?” (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Goodwin, RJ “Roadblocks to achieving ‘reliability’ for non-scientific expert testimony: A response to Professor Edward J Imwinkelreid” (1999–2000) 30 Cumberland Law Review 215Google Scholar, and Roberts, A “Expert evidence on the reliability of eyewitness identification – some observations on the justifications for exclusion: Gage v HM Advocate” (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Waterway, KW and Weill, RC “A plea for legislative reform: The adoption of Daubert to ensure the reliability of expert evidence in Florida courts” (2011) 36/1 Nova Law Review 1Google Scholar.
50 Ward “A new and more rigorous approach”, above at note 12 at 241.
51 Lorandus “Expert evidence post-Daubert”, above at note 41.
52 Dwyer The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence, above at note 15 at 194.
53 The Law Commission Consultation Paper no 190: The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, part 2, para 2.3.
54 Allen and Nafisi “Daubert and its discontents”, above at note 10 at 138.
55 Phipson on Evidence, above at note 20 at 1021. See also R Slovenko “The role of the expert (with focus on psychiatry) in the adversarial system” (1988) 16 Journal of Psychiatry & Law 335.
56 L Meintjes-Van der Walt “Science friction: The nature of expert evidence in general and scientific evidence in particular” (2000) 117 South African Law Journal 778. See also J McEwan Evidence and the Adversarial Process: The Modern Law (2nd ed, 1998, Hart Publishing) at 162 and MN Howard “The neutral expert: A plausible threat to justice” (1991) Criminal Law Review 98.
57 Chin, JM, Growns, B and Mellor, DT “Improving expert evidence: The role of open science and transparency” (2019) 50 Ottawa Law Review 365 at 384Google Scholar.
58 Ibid.
59 Allen and Nafisi “Daubert and its discontents”, above at note 10 at 137.
60 Sec 42(2)(f)(iv). See also DM Chirwa Human Rights under the Malawi Constitution (2011, Juta and Co Ltd) at 448.
61 der Walt, L Meintjes-Van “Expert evidence and the right to a fair trial: A comparative perspective” (2001) 17/3 South African Journal on Human Rights 301 at 309Google Scholar.
62 Id at 307.
63 Visser “Defence challenges”, above at note 43 at 31.
64 Ibid.
65 Meintjes-Van der Walt “Expert evidence”, above at note 61 at 308.
66 Ibid.
67 Visser “Defence challenges”, above at note 43 at 46.
68 Chirwa Human Rights, above at note 60 at 448.
69 Meintjes-Van der Walt “Expert evidence”, above at note 61 at 311.
70 Makanje, GD “The protection of vulnerable witnesses during criminal trials in Malawi: Addressing resource challenges” (2020) 20 African Human Rights Law Journal 206 at 210Google Scholar.
71 W Scharf et al “Access to justice for the poor of Malawi? An appraisal of access to justice provided to the poor of Malawi by the lower subordinate courts and the customary justice forums” (2002, unpublished DFID Malawi Report) at 12. Although there is no recent data available, this problem seems to persist.
72 Edmond “Is reliability sufficient?”, above at note 4 at 32. See also A Roberts “Rejecting general acceptance, confounding the gate-keeper: The Law Commission and expert evidence” (2009) Criminal Law Review 551.
73 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 503.
74 Ibid.
75 Frye v US [1923] 293 F 1013 (DC Cir).
76 Joukov, AM “Who is the expert? Frye and Daubert in Alabama” (2016) 47/2 Cumberland Law Review 275Google Scholar; Alter, Z “Unpacking Frye-Mack: A critical analysis of Minnesota's Frye-Mack standard for admitting scientific evidence” (2017) 43/3 Mitchell Hamline Law Review 626Google Scholar.
77 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc [1993] 509 US 579; Joukov “Who is the expert?”, above at note 76 at 276.
78 Roberts “Expert evidence”, above at note 48 at 93.
79 Alter “Unpacking Frye-Mack”, above at note 76 at 632.
80 [1999] 523 US 137.
81 [1997] 522 US 136.
82 Joukov “Who is the expert?”, above at note 76 at 276; Alter “Unpacking Frye-Mack”, above at note 76 at 632.
83 R v Gilfoyle [2001] 2 Cr App R 57.
84 [1994] 2 SCR 9; Chin, Growns and Mellor “Improving expert evidence”, above at note 57 at 380.
85 Id at 381.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid; R v LJ [2000] SCC 51; White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co [2015] SCC 23.
88 Id.
89 Wong, R “Judging between conflicting expert evidence: Understanding the scientific method and its impact on apprehending expert evidence” (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 169 at 205Google Scholar.
90 Meintjes-Van der Walt “Expert evidence”, above at note 61 at 303.
91 Laws of Zambia, Criminal Procedure Code, part V (cap 88).
92 Laws of Zimbabwe, Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (cap 9:07), sec 278.
93 Epps, JA and Todorow, K “Refryed forensics: Screening expert testimony in criminal cases through Frye plus reliability” (2018) 48 Seaton Hall Law Review at 1161Google Scholar.
94 Mangrum, W and Mangrum, RC “Evidence-based medicine in expert testimony” (2019) 13 Liberty University Law Review at 337Google Scholar; Dioso-Villa, R “Is the expert admissibility game fixed? Judicial gatekeeping of fire and arson evidence” (2016) 38 Law and Policy 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Barnes, DW “General acceptance vs. scientific soundness: Mad scientists in the courtroom” (2004) 31 Florida State Law Review 303Google Scholar.
96 Grimm, PW “Challenges facing judges regarding expert evidence in criminal cases” (2018) 86 Fordham Law Review 1615Google Scholar.
97 For instance, DNA technology is not available in the country.
98 Malawi Law Commission, Report of the Law Commission on the Review of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code (Cap 8:01) at 95.
99 Roberts and Zuckerman Criminal Evidence, above at note 1 at 494.
100 Report of the Law Commission, above at note 98.
101 Ibid.
102 R v Njobvuyalema, above at note 21; R v Mphatso Chimangeni Criminal Appeal no 2 of 2003, High Court Principal Registry.
103 R v Livingstone Nkhata and Frank Yiwonde Criminal Appeal no 29 of 1993 (unreported).
104 R v Mafukeni Kavalo Criminal Appeal no 20 of 2017 (unreported); R v Jafuli, above at note 24; R v Mapwesa [1984–86] 11 MLR 190; R v Hassain [1990] 13 MLR 151; R v Zobvuta [1994] MLR 317; R v Matilda Luka Zulu [2008] MWHC 220; R v Njobvuyalema, above at note 21.
105 Above at note 21.
106 R v Njobvuyalema, above at note 21.
107 R v Jafuli, above at note 24.
108 Ibid.
109 R v Mapwesa, above at note 104.
110 R v Njobvuyalema, above at note 21.
111 R v Macdonald Kumwembe, Pika Manondo & Raphael Kasambara Criminal Case no 65 of 2013 (unreported).
112 R v Mzondi Mvula & Two Others Criminal Case no 65 of 2013 (unreported).
113 R v Oswald Flywell Gideon Lutepo Criminal Case no 2 of 2014 (unreported).
114 [2004] 1 ALL ER 725.
115 Report of the Law Commission, above at note 98 at 25.
116 R v Hassain, above at note 104.
117 Consultation Paper no 190, above at note 53 at part 4, para 4(80).
118 Raitt Evidence, above at note 36 at 18.
119 R v Oswald Lutepo, above at note 113.
120 Section 42(2)(f)(v).
121 No 28 of 2010, sec 18.
122 Other countries, such as England and Wales, have even gone further and have enacted a code of conduct outlining the duties and responsibilities of all experts and guiding them to overcome problems of bias, emphasizing that the expert's paramount duty is to assist the court, not the parties.
