A Comparative Study of the Burden of Proof in Claims Based on Scientific Evidence in Iranian and English Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Law , Ma., C, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.

2 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Ma., C, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.

3 Department of Private Law, Go., C, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.

Abstract

This study aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian and English legalsystems regarding the use of scientific evidence and to propose solutions for overcomingobstacles to its acceptance. The results indicate that within Iranian law, the acceptance ofscientific evidence is highly dependent on the judge’s personal judgment and the principleof “the judge’s personal knowledge,” which can lead to contradictory opinions. By contrast,the English legal system employs stricter criteria, such as the Daubert principles, whichhave enhanced the accuracy of scientific evidence evaluation but have also resulted in morecomplex and costly processes. Both legal systems face challenges, including the potentialmisuse of scientific evidence and a lack of specialized training for judges and experts.The study concludes by suggesting that the Iranian legal system, drawing on the Englishexperience, develop clear criteria for the acceptance of scientific evidence and standardizeits evaluation process. Reforms have also been proposed for the English context to reducecosts and streamline procedures. The study highlights the importance of specialized judicialtraining and international cooperation for improving the efficiency of judicial systems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abazari Fumshi M, Practical Method of Preparing and Writing Various Types of Defense Bills in Criminal Matters (Khorsandi, Tehran 2022) [In Persian]
Adams P, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; How do Judges Decide Cases in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? (University of the West Indies, Mona 2024)
Albright T, A Scientist’s Take on Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom (University of St. Louis, Washington 2023)
Ashouri M, Criminal Procedure (SAMT, Tehran 2021) [In Persian]
Behrens M, A Brief Guide to the 2023 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence (The Federalist Society, New York 2024)
Brodowski D, Admissibility of Evidence in EPPO Proceedings (SAGE, London 2023)
Cheng E, The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence (Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville 2022)
Cross N, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction (tr Amir Etemadi, Majd, Tehran 2019)
Esmaili H, Civil Procedure: Merger and Separation of Claims (Publishing Company, Tehran 2022) [In Persian]
Firuzian Haji E, Comparative Studies of the Prosecutor in the Iranian Legal System and the International Criminal Court (Mahris, Tehran 2023) [In Persian]
Ghafouri A, Criminal Procedure Code (Ariadad, Tehran 2023)
Haddadi M, International Arbitration in the Iranian Legal System (Majd, Tehran 2019) [In Persian]
Mansour J, Code of Procedure of General and Revolutionary Courts (in Civil Matters) (Doran, Tehran 2025)
Medvedeva M and McBride P, Legal Judgment Prediction: If You Are Going to Do It, Do It Right(Leiden University, Rapenburg 2023)
Mohammadi H, Civil Procedure Code (Danesh, Tehran 2023) [In Persian]
Mousavifard MR, Islamic Criminology (Majd, Tehran 2018) [In Persian]
Nikbakhti J, Code of Criminal Procedure (Majd, Tehran 2022) [In Persian]
Pourghahremani B, Restitution of Trial in Criminal Matters (Khorsandi, Tehran 2024) [In Persian]
Shakeri A, Criminal Procedure Code of Arrest in Iranian Criminal Procedure (Majd, Tehran 2018) [In Persian]
Sipiorski E, Scientific Knowledge: Its Impacts on Judicial Decision-Making and International Law in the Era of Sustainability (Tilburg University, Tilburg 2023)
Spark J, Sentencing in English Criminal Law (tr Reza Ehsanpour, Mehrsa, Tehran 2020)
Zeraat A, Principles of Iranian Criminal Procedure (Majd, Tehran 2021) [In Persian]
 
Articles
Bachmaier L, ‘Mutual Admissibility of Evidence and Electronic Evidence in the EU’ (2023) 26 European Journal of Law 223 https://doi.org/10.30709/eucrim-2023-019
Castelliano C, Grajzl P and Watanabe E, ‘Does electronic case-processing enhance court efficacy? New quantitative evidence’ (2023) 40 Government Information Quarterly 276 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101861
Chauhan L, ‘Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Scientific Evidence: Legislative and Judicial Approach in India’ (2023) 8 International Journal for Research Trends and Innovation 145
Dawson C and others, ‘Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life’ (2024) 9 Journal of Cognitive Research Principles and Implications 50 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500001455
Dembour M, ‘The Evidentiary System of the European Court of Human Rights in Critical Perspective’ (2023) 4 Journal of European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 363 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781780685175
Eckhartt G and Ruxton G, ‘Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford’s Law’ (2023) 8 Journal of Research Integrity and Peer Review 68 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104084
Eze B, ‘An Overview of the Impact of the Evidence (Amendment)Act 2023 on Legal Proceedings in Nigeria’ [2023] Journal of Law 1
Faigman DL, Scurich N and Albright TD, ‘The need for anti-expert experts to rebut claims of junk forensic science’ (2022) 46 Journal of Scientific American Law 37 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301839120
Garrett BL, Scurich N and Crozier WE, ‘Mock jurors’ evaluation of firearm examiner testimony’ (2020) 44 Journal of Law and Human Behavior 412 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000423
Keller H and Ganesan P, ‘The Use of Scientific Experts in Environmental Cases before the European Courts of Human Rights’ (2024) 73 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 997 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589324000356
Khalifa O, Yaacob A and Masri I, ‘The Modern Scientific Proofs and their Authenticity in Criminal Evidence: Literature Review’ (2023) 13 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 970 https://doi.org/10.47667/ijppr.v4i1.188
Leonhard C, ‘Through Smoke and Mirrors: Excluding Malingering Expert Testimony Under the Daubert Standard’ (2024) 59 Georgia Law Review 1
Lesciotto K and Christensen A, ‘The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology’ (2023) 69 Journal of Forensic Legal Science 19
Levinson J and others, ‘Scientific Evidence in Courts of Law: An Overview’ (2024) 22 Journal of Judicial Independence 140
O’Brien T, Hawkins S and Loesch A, ‘Scientific Disciplines and the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Courts’ (2022) 14 Sage Law Journal 11
Rao K and others, ‘Role of scientific evidence in the judiciary system: A Systematic Review’ (2023) 17 Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology 79
Roberts P, ‘Theorising Evidence Law’ (2023) 43 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 629
Ruggeri K and others, ‘A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19’ [2024] Journal of Private Law 134
Rwetembula J, ‘Legal and Practical Challenges for the Admissibility of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Mainland Tanzania’ (2024) 7 East African Journal of Law and Ethics 136 https://doi.org/10.37284/eajle.7.1.2431
Scurich N, Faigman D and Albright T, ‘Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods’ (2023) 120 Journal of Law 112 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301843120
Shawa R and others, ‘A promising potential: Using the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress to advance public health in Africa’ (2023) 23 African Human Rights Law Journal 30 https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n1a2
Thomaidou M and Berryessa C, ‘Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis’ (2024) 95 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102007
Ward T and Ferguson A, ‘Proof of foreign law: a reduced role for expert evidence?’ (2024) 20 Journal of Private International Law 95 https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2024.2347720
Zhu M and Fan L, ‘A comparative study of the judicial construction of scientific credibility in climate litigation’ (2024) 33 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 250 https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12542
 
Cases
R v Adams (G W) [1996] 3 SCR 101
R v Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
R v T [2010] EWCA Crim 2439
Frye v United States 293 F 1013 (DC Cir 1923)
Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 3, Issue 1
June 2025
Pages 147-163

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics