Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Forensic science evidence in question

By Mike Redmayne, Paul Roberts, Colin Aitken and Graham Jackson


Analyses the Court of Appeal judgment in R. v T in which the court in remarking on shoeprint comparison evidence considered how expert witnesses, in particular forensic scientists, should present their evidence in court and the types and quality of the data they can draw on when formulating their conclusions. Identifies what the court had to say about the methodology employed by the expert witness, in particular the use of likelihood ratios. Emphasises positive features of the judgment, rejecting interpretations which threaten to diminish the integrity and distort the probative value of scientific evidence

Topics: HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology, K Law (General)
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell
Year: 2011
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles

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