Expert Witness by Anna Sandiford Page B

approach and it means the working day is much easier and giving evidence in court is much less stressful.
    New Zealand on the other hand has a totally different approach to the matter. It is relatively unusual for independent experts to attend the laboratories of ESR Forensic. Compare that with independent scientists in England and Wales who visit ‘prosecution’ laboratories a couple of times a week (depending on their areas of expertise). Population size is not really the defining factor because I estimate that in England and Wales each independent company (each containing a variety of specialists) serves a couple of million people and undertakes several hundred reports each year. Compare that with New Zealand where the amount of cases subjected to thorough scientific review is a small fraction of that undertaken in the United Kingdom. This confirms the view expressed to me by some criminal law barristers that New Zealand cases tend to be challenged on technical legal grounds. To me, the most sensible way forward is to at least consider the whole shebang, which also then fulfils the lawyer’s duties as set out in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. These rules are made in accordancewith the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the purposes of this Act being, among other things, ‘to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services’. As a forensic scientist, I want to make sure that if science is used to put someone in prison, it’s the right person and for the right scientific reasons.
    I don’t know what the US and UK reviews will finally say but the thing to remember is that if the overall outcomes and the work being carried out to address those outcomes identifies some real problems, the implications could be felt throughout court systems worldwide — including New Zealand. We shall just have to watch and see.

Chapter 6
The arena
    C ourt buildings are as varied in appearance, atmosphere and setting as the cases heard within their walls. Some modern courts are just plain hideous and when I say ‘modern’ I mean post-war or 1970s and it seems to be the lower courts that suffer the most — Magistrates’ Courts or District Courts.
    Guildford Magistrates’ Court in Surrey, England, is a vile box of a monstrosity: rain-streaked grey concrete overlying dull brown brick, wedged between two main roads and a municipal car park. It’s hard to describe it in any unique or distinguishing way because nothing about it is either unique or distinguishing; it just looks like so many other grey, concrete, two-level office blocks. Given that it’s so vile, you’d think urban planners would have learnt and wouldn’t make the same mistake again. Oh, how wrong it is possible to be. Just down the road in Aldershot (which, interestingly, is easily mis-typed as Aldershit) is a repeat offender, this time in a slightly paler shade of grey. The car park surrounds it and the ring road is right outside the front door. The oppressiveness continues inside, in charmless rooms, orange plastic chairs in the waiting area, brown/cream cracked melamine-topped counters and a school toilet. The court seats are slightly better — of thefabric-covered variety but sit on an industrial strength brown carpet and windowless corridors.
    On the other hand, some lower courts are lovely, such as Chelmsford Magistrates. A beautiful open entry hall with high ceilings, tiled flooring and carved wooden handrails. Some courts are just surprising. North Somerset District Court is lovely and airy but has a strange pile of stones out the front — perhaps they had some money left over and didn’t know what to spend it on. The parking is excellent, though, and free.
    Manukau District Court is quite pleasing on the eye from the outside and it hasn’t aged too badly considering how many cases they hear and the number of people thronging through