Expert Scientific Evidence in the Investigation and Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse in Adversarial Jurisdictions

Abstract

This chapter explores some problematic areas for expert scientific evidence in the investigation and prosecution of cases of child sexual abuse (CSA), an area of increased social importance. In particular, it focuses on the difficulties of gathering sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution and the challenges concerning trustworthiness presented by emerging science. Each of these areas exemplifies the close dependency between the two disciplines while also revealing the tensions that shape their interactions more generally (Jasinoff, 1995; Redmayne, 2001). The chapter draws on examples from the common-law countries, that is, English-speaking jurisdictions with an adversarial background: Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, North America and Scotland. The disciplines of law and science have a unique and enduring relationship. They perform a distinctive role within the adversarial criminal justice system. The rules for admissibility of expert evidence in adversarial jurisdictions share a common heritageIntroduction 351 Science, Certainty and Miscarriages of Justice 352 Role of Expert Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions 354 Barriers to Prosecution 355 Overcoming Barriers to Prosecution: Obtaining Evidence 356 Potential of Emerging Science 361 Conclusion 363 References 363and a broad set of principles, values and anticipated outcomes. Although the law in these jurisdictions is subject to regional variation, the science has universal application. As such, the practices in all countries following an adversarial approach have relevance for one another.