Misinterpretation of expert evidence in Wood v R

Abstract

Expert evidence presented in the Gordon Wood murder trial is examined in the light of his subsequent acquittal by the appeal court. A case is made that the scientific evidence presented at the trial was valid but it was misinterpreted by the appeal court. The fundamental reason appears to be that lawyers in general, and the judges in particular, had no formal qualifications in the relevant scientific field, which in this case was physics. Specific examples from the judgment are analysed to illustrate the nature of the problem. It is concluded that the validity of scientific evidence cannot reliably be determined by people who have no qualifications in the relevant or a related science. That might be stating the obvious, but it is particularly relevant when lawyers are charged with these tasks.

Keywords:

• expert evidence
• Gordon Wood trial
• physics
• biomechanics
• appeal court