This is much broader than the mechanics of the trial and judgement processes and the legal and police mechanisms that led to them in the first instance.

First, as we have just seen, there is the dominant narrative, which for example in Nazi Germany achieved the widespread acceptance that Jews were not to receive compassion let alone due process. A simple Irish example was when Judge Paul Carney ruled that the innocent nun, Nora Wall, was a gang rapist and sentenced her to life imprisonment, but then through what may have been either a miracle or a rare stroke of luck the unmasking of her false accusers saw her freed within days. It appears that Carney's ruling was deeply influenced by the then dominant narrative that certain 'victims' never lied, even when compensation was involved.

However, where the dominant narrative does not apply or where it my be survived there are many other pitfalls and barriers facing the wrongfully or unfairly treated. They may be penniless, they may face an impenetrable array of laws couched in language designed to confuse and obfuscate, they may find themselves represented by incompetent, greedy and even corrupt solicitors. They may have become the victims of the police looking for an easy target to take the credit for solving a crime or they may be the victims of false or malicious accusations or allegations made in the hope of compensation.

Once the legal process of accusation and trial begins the problems of obtaining due process continue. If expert witnesses are involved, these problems can be severe with profound negative consequences for the accused. A private joke in Ireland describes expert witnesses as 'working in the perjury industry'. This, however, is not funny for those who suffer the consequences. The expert witness, more often than not, comes up with an expert opinion heavily weighed in favour of the case of the individual he is representing. That there has been no outcry against this is because largely such experts have been acting for those claiming compensation for injuries against companies, hospitals and public authorities and these faceless bodies are having to pay.

Where, however, there is an expert witness acting for the state against an individual accused of a serious offence the consequences for that individual can be momentous. Take, for example, a young Irish man accused of hacking into US government computers whose extradition is sought by the US authorities. The dominant narrative, despite much evidence that it requires scrutiny, is that relations with the US require the suspension of certain precautionary measures - yes, the start of the slippery slope into the police state. Say there is a local Irish expert on US human rights, or their absence, who has hands-on experience of trying to obtain justice for individuals over there and in particular who knows about the failings of US defence attorneys and expert witnesses. This potential Irish expert is unlikely to be called to give evidence as his 'expertise' is not certified by an accepted qualification and the young defendant's lawyers may not take the time or the trouble, or even have the interest, in going down this road. But the US authorities will produce expert opinion in the form of statements to the Irish court or their own experts to outline the gravity of the offences committed and the need for extradition.

This is a point where we may find ourselves moved beyond due process and a fair trial to the 'Ah but!'

The 'Ah but'! is another expression of the dominant narrative. "Ah but isn't computer hacking wrong?" That is not the issue. The issue is whether the young man receives due process and whether he becomes the victim of cruel and unusual punishment, more of which below.

The most serious abuse of expert witness testimony where individuals are concerned is where all, or virtually all, expert witnesses work only for the prosecution, that is the police and prosecution service and this is a fact of life with computer forensics experts in the US and the UK and several other English-speaking countries where individuals are accused of accessing illegal imagery. Should such a forensics expert do work for the defence it would probably mean an end to any future profitable forensics work from the police and state.

Go to Cruel and unusual punishment

Home