Novel Scientific Evidence and Judicial "Gatekeeping": R v Calder and Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Compared

Abstract

This article examines the approach of the High Court to the admissibility of novel scientific expert evidence in R v Calder (Unreported, 12 April 1995, High Court, Christchurch Registry, T 154/94). In Calder, Tipping J establishes a "gatekeeping" role for judges which requires them to test novel scientific evidence for relevance and reliability. The article compares that approach with the approach taken by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 125 L Ed 2d 469. The implications of such a test are considered.  Although the Court of Appeal has not considered the issues raised in Calder, the article concludes that the approach is the most suitable one for New Zealand.