---
title: "Daubert standard"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:18.264783+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== International influence ==
The Canadian Supreme Court expressly discussed the Daubert standard in R. v. J.-L.J., [2000]. 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."  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". 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 United Kingdom House of Commons recommended the creation of a Forensic Science Advisory Council to regulate forensic evidence in the UK and observed that:

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.
The 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.

== See also ==
Frye standard

== Notes ==

== References ==

== External links ==
The Daubert Trilogy in the States
Daubert on the Web
Daubert-The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You've Never Heard Of
Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) Archived 2011-02-01 at the Wayback Machine, collection of original documents and commentary on the Daubert standard and the use of science in public policy.
Barry Yeoman Putting Science in the Dock, The Nation
Bernstein, David (1 February 2007). "Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution". Iowa Law Review. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 07-11, 2008. 93 (451). George Mason University School of Law. SSRN 963461. Date posted: 15 February 2007; Last revised: 28 November 2011
Eric Helland, "The Role of Ideology in Judicial Evaluations of Experts," The Journal of Law and Economics 62, no. 4 (November 2019): 579-611.
The Daubert Tracker