Whilst the underlying reasons for blanket immunity being offered to expert witnesses, that is to encourage experts to assist the court without fear of suit, is on the surface understandable, what is not understandable is that a law would protect someone who deliberately and maliciously interferes with evidence to give a false result. As it stands, there is no compensation for the victim of these actions and no accountability by way of criminal charges, the latter due to the reluctance of the courts to pursue such charges.

Time for Change:

If, as reported on the BBC news website of 30 January 2008, the Law Lords in England can overturn a 400 year old law in order to allow a rape victim the opportunity to sue her attacker for compensation outside the previous statute of limitations, why can't the expert immunity law in New South Wales be amended to remove immunity from those experts who, with malicious intent of purpose, commit criminal acts in order to have others found guilty of committing alleged criminal acts? Victims of these so-called 'experts' should have the right to pursue compensation.

Young CJ in EQ made the following remarks on 14 December 2007 with regard to the immunity afforded analyst Ballard:

"I have been greatly disturbed by this case as it would seem to the man or woman in the street that if an employee of the Commonwealth whom the community relies on for scientific accuracy, deliberately tampers with his or her scientific instruments to produce a false result knowing that such result may have drastic consequences for a person, that person should be able to sue."