Forensic Odontology in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Despite the historical record, the United Kingdom, like other countries, was slow to recognize the value of forensic odontology as an adjunct to legal proceedings. Increased recognition of the benefits bestowed by the subject largely results from the efforts of Scandinavian workers and the Federation Dentaire International (FDI). By promoting forensic odontology in the academic environment, the FDI and its contributors did much to underscore its claims to academic respectability. This has led to its acceptance in assisting the legal process in many countries, although it remains a minority speciality. Like other jurisdictions, British courts have recognized that dental expertise can be useful in resolving legal questions. However, it has to be accepted that it is an adjunct to these proceedings, and not a prime mover. Trial by experts is not liked by the courts; they prefer a system in which all of the evidence placed before them is considered in context, and not in isolation. Only in that way can a true determination of the issues be made. It is this dislike, or perhaps concern that experts could usurp the role of the court, that has been an impediment to the acceptance of the expert in trials. However, despite these misgivings, forensic odontology is widely accepted by all of the UK courts. Increasing sophistication in the methodologies available means that the value placed on the subject has increased. The courts have recognized this and are much more demanding of those who would claim that they are experts. This is quite different from some aspects of an editorial in The Lancet for 15 December 1951, which reported that “teeth have often played a distinctive part in reconstructing crime” (Anon 1951).