Forensic science evidence in question

How should forensic scientists and other expert witnesses present their evidence in court? What kinds and quality of data can experts properly draw on in formulating their conclusions? In an important recent decision in R. v T1 the Court of Appeal revisited these perennial questions, with the complicating twist that the evidence in question incorporated quantified probabilities, not all of which were based on statistical data. Recalling the sceptical tenor of previous judgments addressing the role of probability in the evaluation of scientific evidence,2 the Court of Appeal in R. v T condemned the expert’s methodology and served notice that it should not be repeated in future, a ruling which rapidly reverberated around the forensic science community causing consternation, and even dismay, amongst many seasoned practitioners.3 At such moments of perceived crisis it is essential to retain a sense of perspective. There is, in fact, much to welcome in the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R. v T, starting with the court’s commendable determination to subject the quality of expert evidence adduced in criminal litigation to searching scrutiny. English courts have not consistently risen to this challenge, sometimes accepting rather too easily the validity of questionable scientific techniques.4 However, the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R. v T is not always easy to follow, and there are certain passages in the judgment which, taken out of context, might even appear to confirm forensic scientists’ worst fears. This article offers a constructive reading of R. v T, emphasising its positive features whilst rejecting interpretations which threaten, despite the Court of Appeal’s best intentions, to diminish the integrity of scientific evidence adduced in English criminal trials and distort its probative value

Tracking Chart 2011 Asics, China 40001537DV

This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University, pertaining to the effects of globalization on the workplace worldwide. Special emphasis is placed on labor rights, working conditions, labor market changes, and union organizing.FLA_2011_Asics_TR_China_40001537DV.pdf: 54 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Tracking Report 2011 Yee Tung, China 830015141HV

This document is part of a digital collection provided by the Martin P. Catherwood Library, ILR School, Cornell University, pertaining to the effects of globalization on the workplace worldwide. Special emphasis is placed on labor rights, working conditions, labor market changes, and union organizing.FLA_2011_Yee_Tung_TR_China_830015141HV.pdf: 5 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

The Tell-Tale “Heart”: Determining “Fair” Use of Unpublished Texts

Copyright laws require that courts consider at least four factors in determining whether a quotation or close paraphrase of another\u27s unpublished work without permission falls under fair use. Several cases involving fairuse are discussed

Lessons from Turkey: anti-terrorism legislation and the protection of free speech

Explores the extent to which the disclosure and other offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 could restrict effective journalistic reporting, drawing on European Court of Human Rights rulings on Turkish cases involving the right to freedom of expression in a context of political violence. Considers the scope of the ss.12, 19 and 35B offences and the implications of the Turkish cases on the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.10 to freedom of expression per se and to the conditions necessary for that expression. Notes the European Court's emphasis on the issues of proportionality and the need for prosecutions in a democratic society, and its interpretation of the boundary between incitement and the merely offensive, disturbing or shocking

Was Slavery Unconstitutional Before the Thirteenth Amendment? Lysander Spooner’s Theory of Interpretation

In 1843, radical abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution of the United States, a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. Why? Because it sanctioned slavery, one of the greatest crimes that one person can commit against another. Slavery was thought by abolitionists to be a violation of the natural rights of man so fundamental that, as Lincoln once remarked: If slavery were not wrong, nothing is wrong. Yet the original U.S. Constitution was widely thought to have sanctioned this crime. Even today, many still believe that, until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude, slavery previously had been constitutional, and for this reason, the original Constitution was deeply flawed. But in 1845 one man disagreed with the conventional wisdom. That man insisted that slavery was not only a moral abomination; it was also unconstitutional. His name was Lysander Spooner and he defended this position in a book, entitled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. While rejecting his conclusion, Garrison wrote of Spooner\u27s argument: We admit Mr. Spooner\u27s reasoning to be ingenious--perhaps, as an effort in logic, unanswerable. Historians of abolitionism know Spooner\u27s name, but lawyers, law professors and their students generally do not. This is a pity. For Lysander Spooner deserves a place of honor among American lawyers, both for the principles for which he stood against the crowd and for the brilliance with which he defended those principles. In this Essay, though the author will be unable to do his analysis complete justice, he wants to describe the method of constitutional interpretation that led Spooner to his conclusion about slavery. In many ways, Spooner\u27s interpretive approach has a very modern ring. In important respects, however, his approach is preferable to those commonly used today and worthy of study for this reason alone

The European Convention on Human Rights: the right to freedom of expression and information restricted by duties and responsibilities in a democratic society

Although Article 10 in principle prohibits interferences by public authorities with the right to freedom of expression, it leaves open some possibilities and margin for State authorities to limit, restrict or sanction certain types of expressions or media-content, due to the “duties and responsibilities” related to communicating ideas and information. This paper, in its first part, clarifies under which circumstances and conditions state interferences with the right to freedom of expression and information can be justified under the European Human Rights system. The second part of the paper will focus on the added value created by the European Court’s (recent) jurisprudence by safeguarding public debate and reporting on matters of public interest, by protecting investigative journalism, whistle-blowing and journalistic sources, and by guaranteeing access to information held by public authorities