Editing Daubert standard (section)

==International influence==
The [[Supreme Court of Canada|Canadian Supreme Court]] expressly discussed the ''Daubert'' standard in ''R. v. J.-L.J.'', [2000].<ref>
{{cite court
|litigants=R. v. J.-L.J.
|vol=2
|reporter=SCR
|opinion=600
|pinpoint=
|court=Supreme Court of Canada
|date=2000
|url=https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc51/2000scc51.html
|access-date=
|quote=
|postscript=
}}
</ref> In ''J.-L.J.'', the court took a look at the development of U.S. law in this regard, noting the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the ''Frye'' standard and its replacement with the ''Daubert'' standard. While the court did note that "''Daubert'' must be read in light of the specific text of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which differs from our own procedures", the court also stated in the same sentence that "the U.S. Supreme Court did list a number of factors that could be helpful in evaluating the soundness of novel science."<ref>Id.</ref>  The court then incorporated elements from the ''Daubert'' standard in their decision regarding the [[Quebec Court of Appeal]] ruling while ultimately rejecting the lower court's decision and reinstating the defendant's conviction.

Later, in 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada in ''White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co.'' [2015] 2 SCR 182 endorsed the parts of ''R v. J.-L.J.'' that cited ''Daubert'', saying: "in the case of an opinion based on novel or contested science or science used for a novel purpose, the reliability of the underlying science for that purpose: ''J. (J.-L.)'', at paras. 33, 35–36 and 47".<ref>[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc23/2015scc23.html ''White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co.''] [2015] 2 SCR 182.</ref> This suggests that reliability using the ''Daubert'' factors should be assessed when novel or contested science is adduced.

Additionally, in 2005, the [[Science and Technology Select Committee]] of the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom House of Commons]] recommended the creation of a Forensic Science Advisory Council to regulate forensic evidence in the [[UK]] and observed that:

{{quote|The absence of an agreed protocol for the validation of scientific techniques prior to their being admitted in court is entirely unsatisfactory. Judges are not well-placed to determine scientific validity without input from scientists. We recommend that one of the first tasks of the Forensic Science Advisory Council be to develop a "gate-keeping" test for expert evidence. This should be done in partnership with judges, scientists and other key players in the criminal justice system, and should build on the US ''Daubert'' test.<ref>House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005) ''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/96i.pdf Forensic Science on Trial]''. London: The Stationery Office Limited, HC96-I, para.173</ref>}}

The [[Law Commission (England and Wales)|Law Commission for England and Wales]] proposed a consultation paper (No.190) to adopt a criterion like the ''Daubert'' standard to help reform the law of evidence in regards to the admissibility of scientific evidence.<ref>[http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp190.pdf "The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales"]. {{Webarchive|url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091212052644/http%3A//www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp190.pdf |date=2009-12-12 }} (PDF). The Law Commission.</ref>