"No justice system can be immunized against the risk of flawed scientific opinion evidence. But with vigilance and care, we can move toward that goal." The Honourable Stephen T. Goudge, Commissioner, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, Report released October 1, 2008, at p. 46 of Executive Summary http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/report/v1_en.html
Under Recommendation No. 116, Justice Goudge recommended guidelines or protocols which would address, among other things, (a) the reporting of adverse judicial comments or concerns on pediatric forensic pathology expert witnesses; and (b) how these comments or concerns should be reported.
(Under construction): As a result of the Charles Smith experience, and in order to help reduce the risks of wrongful civil verdicts in personal injury cases in Canada, the Canadian Centre of Excellence in Injury Law is constructing a Registry of Adverse Findings on Experts. This Registry compiles adverse comments and findings on experts in the injury justice system to facilitate evaluation of credibility of potential expert evidence. Anyone who is aware of an adverse arbitral or judicial comment, or of a finding of misconduct by a relevant governing body is invited to provide an email update to The Centre at ideas@injurylawcentre.ca. This Registry is intended to provide a one-stop visit to check on an expert across various disciplines, in order to help reduce re-inventing the wheel of researching an expert's background, as well as reducing errors, omissions, and the risks of wrongful civil verdicts in the injury justice system. Every stakeholder should benefit from this information including plaintiff and defence lawyers as they consider the potential weight of their experts' proposed evidence in order to expedite early resolution of disputes. In constructing this Registry, we are mindful that in the Charles Smith chapter in the criminal justice system where a disturbing number of innocent Canadians were convicted of heinous crimes against small children and imprisoned on the strength of deeply flawed Smith expert evidence, there had been adverse judicial comments on Charles Smith which were reported years before many of his tainted cases. Had such adverse comments been more widely publicized, justice would have likely had a better chance.)
.jpg)
1 comment:
Any thoughts on this:
The Canadian Centre of Excellence in Injury Law
Registry of Adverse Findings on Experts
"No justice system can be immunized against the risk of flawed scientific opinion evidence. But with vigilance and care, we can move toward that goal." The Honourable Stephen T. Goudge, Commissioner, Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario, Report released October 1, 2008, at p. 46 of Executive Summary http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/goudge/report/v1_en.html
Under Recommendation No. 116, Justice Goudge recommended guidelines or protocols which would address, among other things, (a) the reporting of adverse judicial comments or concerns on pediatric forensic pathology expert witnesses; and (b) how these comments or concerns should be reported.
(Under construction): As a result of the Charles Smith experience, and in order to help reduce the risks of wrongful civil verdicts in personal injury cases in Canada, the Canadian Centre of Excellence in Injury Law is constructing a Registry of Adverse Findings on Experts. This Registry compiles adverse comments and findings on experts in the injury justice system to facilitate evaluation of credibility of potential expert evidence. Anyone who is aware of an adverse arbitral or judicial comment, or of a finding of misconduct by a relevant governing body is invited to provide an email update to The Centre at ideas@injurylawcentre.ca. This Registry is intended to provide a one-stop visit to check on an expert across various disciplines, in order to help reduce re-inventing the wheel of researching an expert's background, as well as reducing errors, omissions, and the risks of wrongful civil verdicts in the injury justice system. Every stakeholder should benefit from this information including plaintiff and defence lawyers as they consider the potential weight of their experts' proposed evidence in order to expedite early resolution of disputes. In constructing this Registry, we are mindful that in the Charles Smith chapter in the criminal justice system where a disturbing number of innocent Canadians were convicted of heinous crimes against small children and imprisoned on the strength of deeply flawed Smith expert evidence, there had been adverse judicial comments on Charles Smith which were reported years before many of his tainted cases. Had such adverse comments been more widely publicized, justice would have likely had a better chance.)
Post a Comment