Background
This symposium will explore the legal status, professional
qualifications and procedural role of court experts in different legal systems, with a
particular focus on European jurisdictions and selected non-European models, at the 2027
International Conference on Education, Law and Institutional Adaptation. The starting
point for the discussion will be the Polish draft Act on Court Experts and Expert
Opinion Institutions, currently under consideration in Poland.
Expert evidence has become an increasingly important
component of modern judicial decision-making, particularly as courts rely on
increasingly sophisticated scientific and technical methods in the investigation and
adjudication of complex cases. At the same time, the growing use of forensic science has
raised fundamental questions concerning the competence, independence, methodological
reliability and accountability of court experts. Legal systems differ significantly in
the way they select, qualify and supervise experts, assess the scientific validity of
expert methodologies, and enable courts and parties to scrutinize expert opinions.
These differences have become particularly relevant in the
context of the broader development of evidence-based justice and fair trial standards,
where the reliability of expert evidence may have a decisive impact on judicial
outcomes. Comparative analysis of national models may therefore contribute to
identifying effective approaches to regulating the status and professional standards of
court experts while safeguarding judicial independence and procedural fairness.
Goal/Rationale
The central problem addressed by this research topic is how legal systems can ensure
that expert evidence is competent, independent, scientifically reliable and subject to
effective judicial and adversarial scrutiny. Despite the growing importance of expert
evidence, substantial differences remain between jurisdictions concerning the
qualification and certification of experts, the validation of forensic methodologies,
institutional oversight, remuneration and the procedural mechanisms available to
challenge expert opinions.
The symposium aims to identify and critically compare effective regulatory and
institutional models and to assess how recent advances in forensic science,
accreditation, quality assurance and evidence-based approaches can be incorporated into
legal frameworks governing expert evidence. Particular attention will be given to the
Polish draft Act on Court Experts and Expert Opinion Institutions as a contemporary case
study.
The ultimate goal is to develop a comparative framework of best practices that may
contribute to strengthening the quality and reliability of expert evidence while
maintaining expert independence, procedural fairness and effective judicial control. The
research will seek to bridge the gap between legal doctrine, forensic science and
courtroom practice.
Scope
The symposium welcomes interdisciplinary and comparative contributions from legal
scholars, forensic scientists and researchers, as well as practitioners involved in the
administration and evaluation of expert evidence. Contributions may address, in
particular:
- legal models governing the status, qualifications, certification and professional
responsibility of court experts;
- standards for assessing the scientific validity, reliability and quality of forensic
methods;
- the independence, impartiality and ethical responsibilities of experts;
- the role of expert evidence in criminal investigations and judicial proceedings;
- judicial and adversarial mechanisms for examining, challenging and evaluating expert
opinions;
- comparative approaches to expert accreditation, quality assurance and remuneration;
- recent developments in forensic science and their implications for law and legal
practice.
The symposium particularly encourages contributions from judges, prosecutors, police and
other law-enforcement officers, forensic practitioners, court experts, representatives
of forensic institutions and laboratories, and officials responsible for justice
administration and legislative policy. The aim is to bring together theoretical,
scientific and practical perspectives and to foster dialogue between academia and those
directly involved in the operation and development of systems of expert evidence.
Court Experts and Expert Evidence in Comparative Context: