Merton and the hot tub: Scientific conventions and expert evidence in Australian civil procedure

Law and Contemporary Problems

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 159-189

  Edmond, Gary ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 69849105389     PISSN: 00239186     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Robert K. Merton, Science and Technology in a Democratic Order, 1 J. Legal & Pol. Soc. 115 (1942).
2. reprinted as Robert K. Merton, The Normative Structure of Science, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations 267, 268-70 (Norman W. Storer ed., 1973) (emphasis added).
3. See Merton, supra note 1, at 268-70.
4. Andrew Ligertwood, Australian Evidence (4th ed. 2004).
5. See, e.g., Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 50-55 (1901) (examining the various methods of utilizing expert evidence).
6. See generally Peter Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (1990) (polemical account of the negative impacts of dubious scientific evidence and practices on legal and social outcomes).
7. Ian Freckelton, Prasuna Reddy & Hugh Selby, Australian Judicial Perspectives On Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (1999)
8. Id. at 113. For criticism of this study, see Gary Edmond, Judging Surveys: Experts, Empirical Evidence and Law Reform, 33 Fed. L. Rev. 95, 127-35 (2005).
9. New South Wales Law Reform Comm'n, Expert Witnesses (Report 109) 71 (2005)
10. see also Austl. Law Reform Comm'n, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Justice System (Report 89) ¶ 1.121 (2000) (discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system).
11. There is no constitutional guarantee of a civil jury in Australia. See Bernard Cairns, Australian Civil Procedure 506-536 (6th ed. 2005).
12. Also, in most Australian civil jurisdictions, costs are normally awarded against the unsuccessful party. Id. at 469-471.
13. Civil Procedure Rules, 1999 (Eng. & Wales).
14. Harry Woolf, Access To Justice: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales Ch. 13, ¶¶ 1-2 (1996).
15. Civil Procedure Act, 2005, § 60 (N.S.W.).
16. Id. § 56.
17. See Peter McClellan, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of N.S.W., Address Before the Expert Witness Institute of Australia and the University of Sydney Faculty of Law: The New Rules (Apr. 16, 2007), available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_mcclellan160407.
18. See Gary Edmond, Specialised Knowledge, The Exclusionary Discretions and Reliability: Reassessing Incriminating Expert Opinion Evidence, 31 U. N.S.W. L.J. 1, 1-2 (2008) (examining Australian judges' reluctance to exclude or limit expert evidence).
19. Id. at 49-55.
20. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
21. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
22. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). For Australian cases, see, for example, R v. Tang, (2006) 65 N.S.W.L.R. 681. For England, see, for example, R v. Gilfoyle, [2001] 2 A.C. 57 (Crim. Div.)
23. R v. Dallagher, [2003] 1 A.C. 195 (Crim. Div.).
24. See King v. Military Rehab. and Comp. Comm'n (2005) 83 A.L.D. 322, ¶ 22 (Admin. App. Trib.).
25. Peter Biscoe, Judge, Land & Env't Court of N.S.W., Address at the Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment Courts and Tribunals, Expert Witnesses: Recent Developments in New South Wales (Sept. 16, 2006), ¶ 15, available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lec/ll_lec.nsf/vwFiles/Speech_16Sept06_BiscoeJ_Expert_Witness.doc/$file/Speech_16Sept06_BiscoeJ_Expert_Witness.doc (emphases added)
26. see also Stockland Dev. Pty Ltd. v. Manly Council, No. 10428, 2004 WL 1926821 (N.S.W. Land & Env't Ct., Aug. 3, 2004); BGP Prop. Pty Ltd. v. Lake Macquarie City Council, (2004) 138 L.G.E.R.A. 237, 263.
27. Re Queensl. Indep. Wholesalers Ltd. (1995) 132 A.L.R. 225, 231-32.
28. Re Coonawarra Penola Wine Indus. Ass'n Inc., No. S2000/182, ¶¶ 61, 65 (Admin. App. Trib., Oct. 5, 2001), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2001.
29. See Gary Edmond, Disorder with Law: Determining the Geographical Indication for the Coonawarra Wine Region, 27 Adel. L. Rev. 59, 158-60 (2006) (documenting a contentious dispute over geographical boundaries and the application of scientific-expert evidence).
30. Several Australian jurisdictions have embarked on more-fundamental reforms, which include encouraging parties to select a joint (or single) expert between them or risk the court appointing one. See, e.g., Geoffrey Davies, Current Issues-Expert Evidence: Court Appointed Experts, 23 Civ. Just. Q. 367 (2004) (describing disadvantages of the adversarial system).
31. Biscoe, supra note 20, ¶ 15; see also Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005, § 31.26 (N.S.W.).
32. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005, § 31.23 (N.S.W.).
33. See Tal Golan, Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America 18-22 (2004)
34. See, e.g., Federal Court Rules, Order 34 A.3 (Austl.).
35. Federal Court of Australia, Practice Direction: Guidelines for Expert Witnesses in Proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (2008), available at http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/how/prac_direction.html#current.
36. Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005, § 3.13 (N.S.W.).
37. Id. at Schedule 7, § 31.23. These were derived from English cases, such as: Ikerian Reefer, [1995] 1 A.C. 455
38. R v. Harris, [2005] 1 A.C. 5; R v. B, [2006] 2 A.C. 3.
39. See, e.g., Re Queensl. Indep. Wholesalers Ltd. (1995) 132 A.L.R. 225, 231-32.
40. See, e.g., Re Rosenthal and Repatriation Comm'n, No. N2000/378, 2002 WL 31256991 (Admin. App. Trib., Oct. 9, 2002).
41. See, e.g., Federal Court Rules, Order 34A.3 (Austl.); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005, § 31.35 (N.S.W); Supreme Court Rules, 2006, (Austl. Cap. Terr.).
42. Prominent case law examples include Alphapharm Pty Ltd. v. H. Lundbeck A/S, No. 1120, 2008 WL 1891368, ¶ 58 (Austl., Apr. 24, 2008); Int'l Fund for Animal Welfare (Austl.) Pty Ltd. v. Minister for Env't and Heritage (2006) 93 A.L.D. 625, ¶¶ 43-45 (Admin. App. Trib.)
43. Walker Co. v. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Auth., No. 30024, ¶¶ 1-13 (N.S.W. Land & Env't Ct., Apr. 19, 2004), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2004
44. Powerco Ltd. v. Commerce Comm'n, No. 2005 485 1066, ¶ 74 (N.Z., June 9, 2006), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/cases/NZHC/2006.
45. Peter McClellan, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of N.S.W., Address at the LAWASIA Conference: Expert Witnesses-The Experience Of The Land & Environment Court Of New South Wales (Mar. 21, 2005), available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lec/ll_lec.nsf/vwFiles/Speech_21Mar05_CJ.doc/$file/Speech_21Mar05_CJ.doc.
46. Peter McClellan, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of N.S.W., Address at the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales Annual Conference: Expert Evidence-Aces Up Your Sleeve (Oct. 20, 2006), available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_mcclellan 201006.
47. Peter Heerey, Recent Australian Developments, 23 Civ. JUST. Q. 386, 391 (2004).
48. Garry Downes, Judge of the Fed. Court of Austl., Address at the Inter-Pacific Bar Association Conference: The Use of Expert Witnesses In Court and International Arbitration Processes (May 3, 2006), available at http://www.aat.gov.au/SpeechesPapersAndResearch/speeches/downes/UseExpertWitnessesMay2006.htm.
49. Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the Land & Env't Court of N.S.W., Address Before the Australian Environmental Business Network: Ongoing Reforms of Practice and Procedure (June 16, 2006), available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lec/ll_lec.nsf/vwFiles/Paper_14Jun06_Preston_Reforms.doc/$file/Paper_14Jun06_Preston_Reforms.doc.
50. "Textual support" refers to extracts reproduced throughout this article and Austl. Law Reform Comm'n, Review of The Adversarial System of Litigation: Issues Paper 24, 7.10 (1998), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/issues/24/ALRCIP24.html
51. see also Austl. Law Reform Comm'n, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Justice System (Report 89) (2000); Admin. Appeals Tribunal, An Evaluation of the Use of Concurrent Evidence in The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2005).
52. See sources supporting "Virtue 1" in Table, asserting that concurrent evidence embodies the scientific ethos. See, e.g., McClellan, supra notes 37-38.
53. See sources supporting "Virtue 3" in Table, supra p. 160, asserting that concurrent evidence reduces partisanship.
54. See Gary Edmond, Judicial Representations of Expert Evidence, 63 Mod. L. Rev. 216 (2000) (examining inconsistencies in the way scientific evidence is represented in legal proceedings and judgments)
55. see also David Caudill & Lewis Larue, No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in The Law 49, 54-55 (2006) (noting the loose boundaries between social factors and scientific inquiry and practice)
56. See Merton, supra note 1, at 266-78. "Communalism" and "communality" are often substituted for "communism."
57. See, e.g., McClellan, supra note 38.
58. See Michael Mulkay, Norms and Ideology in Science, 15 Soc. Sci. Info. 637-56 (1976) (discussing the roles of norms in scientific activity)
59. Michael Mulkay, Interpretation and the Use of Rules: The Case of Norms of Science, in Science and Social Structure: A Festschrift for Robert K. Merton 111 (Tom Gieryn ed., 1980) (discussing the important role of normative principles on scientific discourse and practice).
60. See generally Philip Mirowski, The Effortless Economy of Science (2004) (discussing the influence of economics on scientific practice)
61. Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott & Michael Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science (2001) (arguing for a fundamental reexamination of the distinction between society and science)
62. Ian Mitroff, The Subjective Side of Science 85-88 (1974) (examining the role of subjective factors in scientific research)
63. Id. at 77.
64. Id. at 73-79.
65. See, e.g., Harry Collins, Gravity's Shadow (2004) (sociological history of the decadeslong search for evidence of gravitational waves).
66. See, e.g., Heerey, supra note 39.
67. Pervasive assumptions about the efficacy of peer review and publication are critically appraised in Gary Edmond, Judging the Scientific and Medical Literature: Some Legal Implications of Changes to Biomedical Research and Publication, 28 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 523, 523-31 (2008).
68. Int'l Comm. of Med. Journal Editors, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication § II.D (2005). The ICMJE is a group of medical-journal editors, which includes participants from, among others, The New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal, and the Lancet.
69. Steven Yearley, The Relationship Between Epistemological and Sociological Cognitive Interests, 13 Stud. Hist. &. Phil. Sci. 353, 375 (1982).
70. See generally Steve Woolgar, Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science, 11 Soc. Stud. Sci. 365 (1981) (explaining the difficulties of using interests as explanatory resources).
71. Kenneth Rothman, Conflict Of Interest: The New McCarthyism in Science, 269 J. Am. Med. Ass'n 2782, 2783 (1993) (a critical response to calls for full disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research).
72. For an account of the socially contingent nature of "objectivity," see generally Lorraine Daston & Peter Galison, Objectivity (2007)
73. See Laura Hooper, Joe Cecil & Thomas Willging, Assessing Causation in Breast Implant Litigation: The Role of Science Panels, 64 Law & Contemp. Probs. 139, 151-54 (Autumn 2001) (describing problems with a court-appointed expert panel in large-scale litigation over breast implants).
74. See, e.g., McClellan, supra notes 37-38.
75. See Carol Jones, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine and the Practice of Law 165-193 (1994) (socio-legal account of the role of experts in legal processes in England)
76. Admin. Appeals Tribunal, supra note 42, §§ 2.1, 2.28, 6.2; see also King v. Military Rehab. and Comp. Comm'n (2005) 83 A.L.D. 322, ¶ 22 (Admin. App. Trib.); Flintstones Garden Supplies Centres v. Greater Geelong CC, P1775/2006, ¶¶ 41-42 (Admin Trib. (Vict.), Apr. 19, 2007), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2007.
77. See Marvin Frankel, The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1031, 1033-35 (1975) (noting the perspective and limitations of judges in the adversarial system's explication of truth).
78. See Tom Tyler, Why People Obey the Law 115-57 (2006) (exploring the public perceptions of law and legal procedure)
79. See Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, 2005, § 31.35 (N.S.W.) (listing possibilities for the presentation of expert evidence).
80. James Wood, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of N.S.W., Address at the 8th Greek Australian International Legal & Medical Conference: Expert Witnesses: The New Era (June 2001), available at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_speech_wood_010601.
81. See generally Michael Saks & Jonathan Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, 309 Science 892 (2005) (explaining how many longstanding forensic science techniques have not been empirically tested)
82. Ironbridge Holdings Pty Ltd. and WA Planning Comm'n, DR 345, ¶ 44 (Admin. Trib. (W. Austl.), Nov. 28, 2007), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASAT/2007.
83. Uniting Church Homes Inc. and City of Stirling, RD 6, ¶ 31 (Admin. Trib. (W. Austl.), Aug. 19, 2005), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASAT/2005.
84. Gangemi and Shire of Augusta-Margaret River, RD 126, ¶ 26 (Admin. Trib. (W. Austl.), June 2, 2005), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASAT/2005 (emphases added); see also Brescia v. QBE, No. 50082/05, LEXIS BC200705312, ¶¶ 160-61 (N.S.W., July 6, 2007); Gumana v. N. Terr. (2005) 141 F.C.R. 457, ¶ 173; Winters v. Att'y Gen. of N.S.W., No. 40730/07, 2008 WL 715461, ¶
85. 167 (N.S.W. Ct. App., Mar. 18, 2008).
86. Perpetual Tr. Vict. Ltd. v. Ford, No. 15045, 2008 WL 278422, ¶ 43 (N.S.W., Feb. 1, 2008).
87. Jetset Prop. v. Eurobodalla Shire Council, No. 10685, ¶ 42 (N.S.W. Land & Env't Ct., May 9, 2007), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2007.
88. Synergy Envtl. Planning v. Cessnock City Council (No. 2), No. 11353, ¶ 9 (N.S.W. Land & Env't Ct., Mar. 21, 2005), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2005.
89. Morrison and Repatriation Comm'n, No. N2005/47 (Admin. App. Trib., Aug. 2, 2006), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2006.
90. Seven Network Ltd. v. News Ltd., No. 1223, 2007 WL 2137775, ¶ 23 (Austl., July 27, 2007).
91. Id. ¶ 25.
92. Seven Network Ltd. v. News Ltd. (2007) 151 F.C.R. 450, ¶ 14.
93. Rezk and Austl. Postal Co., No. N2002/1720, 2005 WL 165614, ¶¶ 49, 51 (Admin. App. Trib., Jan. 18, 2005)
94. see also Reardon and Repatriation Comm'n, No. N2002/1115 ¶ 30 (Admin. App. Trib., June 26, 2003), available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2003/ (stating that experts' individual positions did not change as a result of the concurrent-evidence approach). Contra Gibbins and Austl. Postal Co., No. N2002/1655, 2003 WL 22073351, ¶ 69 (Admin. App. Trib., July 31, 2003) (noting experts' courtesy and professionalism).
95. Halverson v. Dobler, No. 20182/03, LEXIS BC200609964, ¶¶ 17, 104, 145 (N.S.W., Dec. 1, 2006); see also Wilson v. Tier, No. 20622/2001, LEXIS BC200800781, ¶ 119 (N.S.W., Feb. 22, 2008) (transcript from the concurrent-evidence session is reproduced in the judgment).
96. Halverson, LEXIS BC200609964, ¶ 101 (emphasis added)
97. Id. ¶¶ 67-68.
98. The author conducted more than fifty formal interviews with experts, lawyers, judges, and court workers in N.S.W.
99. 2007 151 F.C.R. 450 (Austl.).
100. See, e.g., Civil Liability Act, 2002 (N.S.W.).
101. Heerey, supra note 39, at 391
102. See Mike Michael, Lay Discourses of Science: Science-In-General, Science-In-Particular, and Self, 17 Sci. Tech. & Hum. Values 313, 313 (1992) (exploring the influence of social institutions and norms on the public's understanding of science).
103. See Gary Edmond & David Mercer, Conjectures and Exhumations: Citations of History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science in U.S. Federal Courts, 14 Law & Literature 309 (2002) (discussing the use of literature from the history, philosophy, and sociology of science in federal jurisprudence before and after Daubert).
104. See Steven Yearley, Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science (2005).
105. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Sheila Jasanoff et al. eds., 1995).
106. See Margaret Berger, Upsetting the Balance Between Adverse Interests: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Trilogy on Expert Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation, 64 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289, 291 (Spring/Summer 2001) (noting the ability of federal district courts to use the Daubert trilogy to shape procedural and substantive law of toxic-tort litigation).
107. Carl Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice (2006) (a critical assessment of judicial responses to scientific evidence in toxic-tort litigation).
108. See Sheila Jasanoff, Law's Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings, 95 Am. J. Pub. Health (Supplement 1) S49, S49-S58 (2005) (arguing that the Daubert trilogy misconstrues scientific practice and its relationship with the law).