Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientist vs the law

  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An Australian case study is presented in which defendants convicted of manufacturing a drug of abuse were acquitted on appeal because of shortcomings in the prosecution's case that established the identity of the material seized. The need to have proper standard operating procedures that can be followed routinely and correctly is highlighted.

Education is needed for forensic analysts and the legal profession to try and produce systems in which the proper outcome is achieved.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NSWCCA (2002) R v Piggott, Griffiths and Simeon. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. NSWCCA 218

  2. NSWCCA (2002) R v Piggott, Griffiths and Simeon. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. NSWCCA 218, paragraph 39

  3. NSWCCA (2002) R v Piggott, Griffiths and Simeon. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. NSWCCA 218, paragraph 40

  4. NSWCCA (2002) R v Piggott, Griffiths and Simeon. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. NSWCCA 218, paragraph 41

  5. Wood J (2002) Forensic sciences from the judicial perspective, in forensic sciences—outcomes for society. 16th International Symposium on Forensic Sciences, Canberra, Australia 13–17 May 2002. Published http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc

  6. ISO/IEC (1999) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:1999, ISO/IEC, Geneva

  7. National Association of Testing Authorities (2000) ISO/IEC 17025 Application Document, supplementary requirements for accreditation in the field of chemical testing. National Association of Testing Authorities, Sydney, Australia

  8. Black MEJ (2000) Guidelines for expert witnesses in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia. Federal Court Practice direction, Federal Court of Australia http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/pracproc/practice_direct.html

  9. Jasanoff S (1995) Science at the bar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, p 47

  10. Hibbert DB (2001) Accreditation Qual Control 6:346–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. NSWCCA (2002) R v Piggott, Griffiths and Simeon. New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. NSWCCA 218, paragraph 61

  12. Balding D, Donnelly P (1994) Nature 368:285–286

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Good IJ (1995) Nature 375:541

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Court of Criminal Appeal (1996) R v Adams. 2 Cr App R 467

  15. NSWCCA (2001) R v GK. NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, NSWCCA 413

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemical Sciences, University of New South Wales, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    D. Brynn Hibbert

Authors
  1. D. Brynn Hibbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Brynn Hibbert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hibbert, D.B. Scientist vs the law. Accred Qual Assur 8, 179–183 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-003-0609-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-003-0609-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation