Terrorist Trials: Forensic Science and the Trial Process

Lennard, Chris; Wallace, Anne

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55475-8_3

Terrorist Trials: Forensic Science and the Trial Process

Chris Lennard³ &
Anne Wallace⁴

Chapter
First Online: 02 December 2016

714 Accesses

Abstract

Forensic science plays an invaluable role in modern legal processes, and nowhere is this more likely to be true than in the modern-day terrorist trial. While the link between the accused and the crime is likely to the major point of contention and the one at which forensic science will be most likely to be engaged, forensic science will often have an important role to play in identifying the methods used to commit the acts in question. In terrorism-related offences, both roles are increasingly likely to be carried out in an internationalised, collaborative environment, where far greater attention will be focused on the quality of the forensic science and its application in the investigation stage, as well as in the courtroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Wheate, R. (2008). Australian forensic scientists: A view from the witness box. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(2), 123–146.
2.
Freckelton, I. R., & Selby, H. (Ed.5). (2013). Expert evidence law, practice, procedure and advocacy. Sydney: NSW Lawbook Co. at 1075.
3.
Allen, R. (Ed.2). (2004). English dictionary. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
4.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 1076, 1081–1083.
5.
Allen, 2004.
6.
Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency. Forensic Science. Retrieved from http://www.anzpaa.org.au/nifs/forensic-sciences
7.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 1075.
8.
Wakefield, A., & Brookman, F. (2009). Criminal investigation. In A. Wakefield & J. Fleming (Eds.), The Sage dictionary of policin g (pp. 65–70). London: Sage Publications Ltd.; Robertson, J. (2004). Forensic science, oxymoron or real science? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(1), 1–2.
9.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 1075.
10.
Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgment. New York: New York University Press.
11.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (2005). Expert witnesses (Report No. 109). Sydney: Author; Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009 at 106–7.
12.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 2005.
13.
Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009 at 106–107.
14.
Ibid; New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 2005.
15.
Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009 at 107.
16.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 2005.
17.
Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009 at 107–108.
18.
Ibid at 104.
19.
Wood, J. (2003). Forensic sciences from the judicial perspective. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35, 115–132.
20.
Forensic Services Department. (2014). General information on forensic services department. Retrieved from http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=internetBridgingPage&Media_ID=3639
21.
Zuiker, A. E. (Producer), & Cannon, D. (Director). (2000). CSI: Crime scene investigation. USA: Santa Clarita Studios.
22.
Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 2014 at 3.
23.
Tilley, N., & Ford, A. (1996). Forensic science and crime investigation (Report No. 73). London: Police Research Group; Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 2014 at 3.
24.
Ibid.
25.
Tilley & Ford, 1996 at 6.
26.
Ribaux, O., Walsh, S. J., & Margot, P. (2006). The contribution of forensic science to crime analysis and investigation: Forensic intelligence. Forensic Science International, 156(2–3), 171–181.
27.
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington: National Academies Press at 23.
28.
Heydon, J.D. (Ed.8). (2010). Cross on evidence. Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths at [1255], [1485], [1490].
29.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 17.
30.
For an overview of the necessary qualifications, see the discussion under “Legal Framework” below.
31.
Allstate Life Insurance Co v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (No 5) (1996) 64 FCR 73 ¶ 75 (Austl.); Harrington-Smith v Western Australia (No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 424 ¶ 40 (Austl.); RW Miller & Co Pty Ltd v Krupp (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 34 NSWLR 129, 130 (Austl.).
32.
Quick v Stoland (1998) 87 FCR 371, 382–3 (Finkelstein J) (Austl.).
33.
Ibid at 382.
34.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 1078.
35.
Ibid.
36.
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521, 598 (Brennan J), 536 (Gibbs CJ & Mason J) (Austl.).
37.
Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.
38.
Freckelton, I. (2016). Expert Evidence Admissibility. In Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J., & McKimmie, B. Expert Evidence and Criminal Jury Trials (pp. 19–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press, [2.06]; summarising R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, pp.46–47. See also the discussion in 2.05 for a more elaborate formulation outlined in subsequent case law.
39.
The Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
40.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 79 (Austl.); Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 79 (Austl.); Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) s 79 (Austl.); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 79 (Austl.); Evidence (National Uniform Law) 2011 (NT) s 79 (Austl.).
41.
Gaudron J in Velevski v The Queen [2002] HCA 4 at [82].
42.
Fed. R. Evid.: Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if
1. (a)
  the expert’s scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
2. (b)
  the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
3. (c)
  the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
4. (d)
  the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
43.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
44.
Freckelton, 2016, at [2.08].
45.
Ibid at [2.17]–[2.25].
46.
McClellan, P. (2009, October). Admissibility of expert evidence under the Uniform Evidence Act. Paper presented to the Judicial College of Victoria Workshop on Emerging Issues in Expert Evidence, Melbourne.
47.
Freckelton & Selby, 2013 at 21.
48.
Ibid.
49.
Id at 20.
50.
Id; Lewis v The Queen (1987) 88 FLR 104 123–4 (Maurice J) (Austl.); R v Tran (1990) 50 A Crim R 233, 242 (Austl.).
51.
Royds, D., Lewis, S. W., & Taylor, A. M. (2005). A case study in forensic chemistry: The Bali bombings. Talanta, 67, 262–268.
52.
Ibid at 262.
53.
Id at 263.
54.
Id at 7.
55.
Id at 267–268.
56.
Id at 267–268.
57.
Benbrika v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 ¶ 2 (Austl.).
58.
Ibid ¶ 155.
59.
Id ¶ 12.
60.
Id ¶ 387.
61.
R v Benbrika & Ors (Ruling Nos 35.01–35.11) [2009] VSC 142 ¶¶ 2, 10, 11, 16 (Austl.).
62.
Ibid ¶¶ 10, 16.
63.
Benbrika v The Queen [2010] VSCA 281 ¶ 363 (Austl.).
64.
Ibid.
65.
Id ¶ 385.
66.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, 2005; Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, 2009 at 86.
67.
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2005). Uniform evidence law (Report No. 102). Sydney: Author.
68.
Woolf, H. K. (1996). Access to justice: Final Report (Report No.2). Retrieved from The National Archives: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/index.htm; Auld, R. E. (2001). A review of the criminal courts of England and Wales. Retrieved from The National Archives: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/; FPT Heads of Prosecutions committee Working Group. (2004). Report on the prevention of miscarriages of justice. Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/pmj-pej.pdf
69.
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, 2009 at 27; The Law Commission. (2009). The Admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales (Report No. 190). Retrieved from: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cp190_Expert_Evidence_Consultation.pdf; The Law Commission. (2011). Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales (Report No. 325). Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229043/0829.pdf; FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group, 2004.
70.
Wheate, R. M., & Jamieson, A. (2009). A tale of two approaches: The NAS report and the law commission consultation paper on forensic science. International Commentary on Evidence, 7(2), 1–25.
71.
The Law Commission. (2009). The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales: A new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability, pp. 10, 66 and 190. London: Author.
72.
Ibid at 10–14.
73.
Id at 14.
74.
Id at 15.
75.
Raymond, T. (2006). The future of forensic scientists. Australian Journal of Forensic Science 38(1), 3–21.
76.
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, 2009 at 45; Janovsky, T. J. (2003). Forensic science – Society is depending (dependent?) on us. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 35(1), 161–169.
77.
Ibid at 44–45.
78.
Id.
79.
Id at 47.
80.
Id at 41–44.
81.
Id at 47.
82.
Id at 53.
83.
National Institute of Forensic Science: Our work. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.anzpaa.org.au/nifs/our-work
84.
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 (Austl.); Carrick, D. (Presenter). (2010, August 17). The Chamberlain case: The lessons learned. In Vowels, E (Producer), Law Report [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/the-chamberlain-case-the-lessons-learned/3020830; Morling, T. R. (1987). Report of the Commissioner the Hon. Mr. Justice T.R. Morling/ Royal commission of Inquiry into Chamberlain Convictions. Canberra: Govt. Printer.
85.
Freckelton, 2016 at [2.38]–[2.42].
86.
Ibid.
87.
Janovsky, 2003 at 164–165.
88.
Ribaux et al., 2006 at 26.
89.
Raymond, 2006 at 4.
90.
Ibid at 3.
91.
Id at 8–9.
92.
Raymond, 2006 at 9.
93.
Janovsky, 2003 at 161.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South, NSW, 2751, Australia
Chris Lennard (Professor of Forensic Science)
Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia
Anne Wallace (Professor of Law)

Authors

Chris Lennard
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Anne Wallace
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Western Sydney University, Australia, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia
David Tait
Charles Sturt University, Australia, Manly, New South Wales, Australia
Jane Goodman-Delahunty

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lennard, C., Wallace, A. (2017). Terrorist Trials: Forensic Science and the Trial Process. In: Tait, D., Goodman-Delahunty, J. (eds) Juries, Science and Popular Culture in the Age of Terror. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55475-8_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55475-8_3
Published: 02 December 2016
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55474-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55475-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics