Unsound Law: Issues with ('Expert') Voice Comparison Evidence (Australia‪)‬

[Since the 1980s the volume of identification evidence derived from surveillance devices and telephones has increased dramatically. This article offers a critical analysis of the forensic use of voice comparison and identification evidence. First, it reviews the contemporary jurisprudence in common law and uniform Evidence Act jurisdictions, then explains some of the limitations with our current responses to voice evidence, particularly the dramatic rise in the reliance placed upon the opinions of investigators, interpreters and (other ad hoc) 'experts' as well as the willingness to leave voice comparison evidence (and exercises) to juries. Employing an original multi-disciplinary methodology, the article then problematises legal practice through the introduction of relevant social science research on voice comparison (and recognition). As the authors explain, relevant scientific research and opinions are rarely adduced by lawyers or referred to by trial judges when instructing or cautioning juries. In consequence, it is suggested that current legal rules and procedures do not adequately represent what is known beyond the courts and thereby fail to embody fundamental criminal justice principles concerned with truth and fairness.] I INTRODUCTION