Lord Quirk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2016-01-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 21 December 2015 (HL4282), how they reconcile that answer with the statement by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in Postnote on forensic linguistics of September 2015 that even recordings of an offender’s voice, verified to the satisfaction of police experts, are not admissible as evidence” in the criminal justice system.”
Lord Faulks
The research briefing to which the noble Lord refers distinguishes between speaker profiling, which courts have yet to find to be sufficiently reliable a technique to constitute admissible evidence in a criminal case, and speaker comparison, evidence of which may be admissible.
Expert evidence is admissible in criminal proceedings at common law. In summary, the evidence must be relevant to what is in issue; it must be capable of helping the court to assess the significance of matters beyond everyday experience (for example, the results of scientific tests); and it must be given by someone who is competent to do so. The Criminal Procedure Rules and the associated Criminal Practice Directions set out the procedure for introducing expert evidence, and list the factors to which the court will have regard in determining the reliability of expert opinion.
