Forensic pathologists who testify for criminal defendants tend to be underpaid, unfairly discredited, and obliged to give their evidence in an atmosphere that is overtly hostile, according to a report commissioned by the Goudge commission.

The report - by University of Western Ontario law professor Christopher Sherrin - concluded that very few pathologists agree to take on the role of a defence expert because it can be such a financially unrewarding and uncomfortable experience.

Prof. Sherrin noted that two of the five forensic pathologists he questioned for his report, David King and Chitra Rao, specifically stated "that when they appeared as witnesses for the defence, they had sometimes experienced palpable hostility from the prosecution and police."

If wrongful convictions are to be avoided in future, Prof. Sherrin said, then it must be impressed on authorities that they cannot use their advantaged position to unfairly discredit pathologists.

Print Edition - Section Front
Enlarge Image

More National Stories
Lunn defends late-night move to fire nuclear watchdog
Jumbo jet crossed plane's path moments before wild dive
Ex-coroner defended Smith's expertise, witness says, belying earlier testimony
Universities bracing for huge influx of students
Ottawa moves to emulate U.S. on new fuel mileage standards
A reeling community says goodbye
Go to the National section
"Crown attorneys and police officers should be mindful not to create an oppressive or overly hostile atmosphere for pathologists testifying for the defence, while still engaging in full and proper cross-examination," he wrote.

The report was commissioned as part of Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge's year-long inquiry into how Charles Smith was able to remain a highly respected fixture of the forensic-pathology field despite a growing record of mistakes that caused a series of wrongful homicide charges and convictions.

Prof. Sherrin concluded that inadequate defence pathology evidence - or defence lawyers who are unable to understand or counteract the Crown's experts - play a role in all too many miscarriages of justice.

"The question is whether defence counsel are up to the task," he said. "It has been said that nothing guarantees conviction of the innocent more than a bad lawyer. Counsel have varying degrees of skill and experience, of course, and some are simply not very good."

Prof. Sherrin said that one of the underlying reasons for this may be that defence lawyers chose their field of study precisely because it did not involve math or science.

"The problem is a difficult one to address, but it might be advisable for law schools to specifically encourage applications from people with science or medicine backgrounds - at least, more than have done so historically," he said in one of several specific recommendations.

Long distances from major centres also create a big problem for defence lawyers attempting to procure expert pathologists, Prof. Sherrin said: "It can be quite expensive to deal with a pathologist who lives and works hundreds or thousands of kilometres away and who therefore requires, for example, an expensive plane ticket and hotel accommodations to come to a trial. Legal Aid exhibits a clear preference for the use of local experts."

Legal Aid also pays a standard fee of $100 an hour for a maximum of about five hours pathology work, he said. Yet most pathologists charge private clients at least $200 to $250, he said, and require between about 20 and 30 hours to see a serious case through properly.

Another unfair obstacle defendants face is that, unlike Crown pathologists, they are rarely present in the autopsy room to make firsthand observations, Prof. Sherrin said. This "places the accused in an impossible situation not of [the accused's] own making," he said, and is often exploited by the Crown to erode the credibility of the defence expert's findings.

Trial judges should prohibit prosecutors from arguing that the evidence of a defence pathologist is inferior to that of the Crown pathologists, he recommended.