Location of Repository

Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a muddle into a nonsense

By R.D. Mackay and Andrew M. Colman

Abstract

This is the author's draft of an article published in Criminal Law Review by Sweet & Maxwell www.sweetandmaxwell.co.ukThis article expands on a previous critical examination of the rule established in R. v. Turner and discusses more recent decisions regarding the admissibility of expert psychiatric and psychological evidence

Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell
Year: 1996
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/533

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1992). 4 All E.R. at p.900. doi
  2. (1989). A Criminal Code for England and Wales, doi
  3. Ahluwalia [1992] 4 doi
  4. (1991). Excluding Expert Evidence: A Tale of Ordinary Folk and Common Experience”
  5. (1991). Excluding Expert Evidence”
  6. (1994). Hegarty doi
  7. (1994). Horne doi
  8. (1987). Howe doi
  9. (1993). Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals doi
  10. (1982). Misconceptions About Psychology Among Students Who Perform Highly” doi
  11. (1995). New Look at Eye Witness Testimony”
  12. (1995). NLJ Law Reports 1032, discussed by L. H. Leigh in “Provocation and the Reasonable Person”
  13. (1993). Sally Lorraine Emery (and Another)
  14. Simon's comments
  15. (1983). Social Psychology as Common Sense”
  16. (1993). The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits” doi
  17. (1994). Turner [1975] Q.B. 834 (C.A.). For a recent application of the Turner rule see R. v. Coles

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.