Technology and medical science have moved ahead so fast that many court fights now depend on very technical evidence. Because of that, expert witnesses are being used more often and seem to matter a lot more. This underpins the importance of what judges and lawyers might need to learn, the danger of believing every expert, and what groups are trying to keep courts from making big mistakes.
Patrick Hodge, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, says “the more complex modern cases are, the more experts are needed.” He also notes that “new tech and new medical science make cases much more expert driven than before.” That matches what we see in everyday court work: DNA testing, fancy finance models, or high tech patents need knowledge that a regular judge or juror simply doesn’t have.
Judges Need to Be Smarter About Science
Lord Hodge also warns that judges can’t just sit back and accept everything an expert says. He says lawyers and judges should improve their “science and tech literacy” so they don’t become “the court is completely cold on a subject.” The idea is that even a top level expert can be wrong. He puts it like this: “any person, no matter how expert, can make mistakes and the court may not see it.” So judges should learn to question rather than just nod.
The Problem of Fake Experts
Another issue Hodge points out is the rise of self styled “experts” who push “pseudoscience.” If judges aren’t trained to spot these shaky claims, fake opinions might slip into verdicts and hurt the fairness of decisions. It’s not just about bad data; it’s about people who dress up nonsense as science.
Groups Helping Judges Learn
Julie Maxton, who runs the Royal Society (the UK’s national science academy), says her group is trying to close the knowledge gap. The Society now runs short seminars and writes easy guides for judges on things like statistics, drug testing, ballistics and DNA work. These programs are practical attempts to give judges the tools they need to understand the science they see in court.
Different Views
Some might argue that more experts actually help the system because they bring needed facts onto the table. Others think we rely too much on experts and forget that ordinary people, maybe jurors, have a role in weighing evidence too. The balance between trusting expertise and keeping the judge’s own judgment on the table is still up for debate.
Since law now mixes with science and tech more than ever, courts have to change how they work. As Lord Hodge puts it, judges must stay alert, learn a bit of science, and be ready to challenge experts when needed. Programs from places like the Royal Society are a step forward, giving judges a better chance to catch mistakes or false claims. All together, the rise of expert witnesses means lawyers and judges need to adapt fast, otherwise “miscarriages of justice” could keep happening even when everyone thought they were being careful.
Professor Maxton, who has been doing forensic work for years, says experts will always be needed, but we must be careful:
“Maxton said there would always be a role for expert witnesses, but the question was whether they should be accredited, and how they can be kept from digressing beyond the key areas of disagreement.”
Danger of Unproved Science – Gait Talk
A scary example is using the way someone walks (gait analysis) to ID a person. Some forensic experts claim they can match a walk to a name. Maxton warns us:
“They say ‘I can tell by the way this person does that…’ But there may be no scientific basis for that.”
If there isn’t solid research backing it, letting courts use that method could slap an innocent person with a wrong label. We need peer review studies before such testimony become courtroom proof.
Keeping Experts Fair
Even a good expert can get swayed by wanting to make their client happy. Hodge notes it clearly: “There was a danger of an expert witness compromising their impartiality by being too anxious to please the client or the lawyers who have instructed them.”
An expert’s first duty is the truth and the court, not the paying side. Teaching ethic basics and using independent panels to pick experts could lower this risk.
In Conclusion
Law and science will keep mixing in today’s complex cases. To keep court decisions honest we have to: close the science gap for lawyers, put clear check lists and limits on what experts can say, and guard against bias. If we do that, scientific proof will help find the truth instead of hiding it.
*The Royal Society is a registered charity, learned society and the UK's national academy of science. Founded in the 1660's by King Charles the Second, the Society's mission reflected in its founding charters is to recognise, promote and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity.
https://royalsociety.org/
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
