Limitations of the Common Law Adversarial Process: How Independent Judicial Research Could Have Avoided the Wrongful Conviction in R v Mullins- Johnson

Abstract

It is often believed that the common law adversarial process performs efficiently to ensure the truth comes out and that justice is served. However, this was not the case in R v Mullins-Johnson. This paper argues that the common law adversarial trial process can actually contribute to wrongful convictions if judicial passivity is strictly adhered to. If the trial judge could have learned about the unreliability of the Crown expert testimony through independent research, he could have intervened to avoid a wrongful conviction.