Abstract:
The contemporary justice system in Sri Lanka provides for a highly evident intersection between
law and science. Expert evidence based on scientific data is used to achieve a more desirable
outcome in domestic legal proceedings. However, this widespread use of expert evidence has
posed several challenges for judges in determining the authenticity and neutrality of such
evidence. Against this background, this paper addresses whether the existing Sri Lankan law
on the admissibility of expert evidence is adequate to ensure that such testimony is reliable
and impartial. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to evaluate the challenges that
may occur in admitting expert testimony and to propose feasible policy-based suggestions to
those challenges. This paper adopts a qualitative method based on primary and secondary
resources to achieve this purpose. It is found that the Evidence Ordinance merely defines who
qualifies as an expert and when their opinions are considered relevant. The Ordinance does
not provide special provisions for assessing their authenticity, reliability, and credibility, except
the general rules of credibility. The courts can grant leave to summon such expert witnesses
for prosecution or defence upon the parties’ request. This lack of legal or policy guidelines for
assessing the reliability of expert witnesses may pose several challenges, such as potential biases
of the experts due to personal incentives, the ‘hired gun’ phenomenon, ‘junk science’ or the
lack of scientific consensus. These challenges may mislead the judges, resulting in a potential
miscarriage of justice. This paper proposes several policy solutions to address these concerns,
such as appointing experts by the court, improving pre-trial disclosure of expert testimony and
establishing an ethical conduct for expert witnesses. Based on the above analysis, it is concluded
that Sri Lanka urgently needs a policy reform to ensure the reliability and impartiality of expert
testimony in legal proceedings.
