"Legal history" in the Making: HM Advocate v Sinclair and the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011

No abstract available

Jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence: a re-evaluation

The primary contribution of this paper is to challenge the accepted wisdom that jury instructions are an ineffective safeguard against wrongful conviction caused by mistaken eyewitness identification. It argues that such a conclusion is based on an erroneous interpretation of the available experimental evidence and that, in fact, there are grounds for optimism about the effectiveness of jury instructions in educating jurors about the risks posed by eyewitness identification evidence and sensitising them to the factors relevant to its evaluation. In order to play a useful role in safeguarding against wrongful conviction, however, instructions need to be easily comprehensible; to reflect the relevant scientific findings; and be provided to jurors in writing (or an alternative format for those who would find written instructions inaccessible). The paper also makes a secondary contribution, which is to warn of the dangers of accepting uncritically the findings of mock jury research as the basis for legal policy formation

Jury directions

No abstract available

Methods of Conveying Information to Jurors: An Evidence Review - Research Findings

Paper suggests that jurors can face considerable challenges in recalling both the evidence and the legal directions in a criminal trial and that they can struggle to understand legal directions. Eight possible methods of improving juror memory and/or understanding were identified: trial transcripts, juror note-taking, audio-visual and digital presentation methods, juror questions, pre-instruction, plain language directions, written directions and structured decision aids (routes to verdict)

Jury research in Scotland: a rejoinder

Responds to an article by Cheryl Thomas in Crim. L.R. 2016, 12, 915-923, criticising the authors' earlier article "How should we go about jury research in Scotland?", Crim. L.R 2016, 10, 697-713, which discussed why jury research is needed and the methods available. Replies to Thomas's criticisms of their understanding of jury research methods and their findings on methods used to answer the questions of the Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review

How should we go about jury research in Scotland?

Considers why jury research is needed in Scotland, and the methods that could be used. Discusses the justifications for research into jury reasoning and decision-making advanced by the Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review, and its proposals on issues such as simple majority verdicts. Examines options for research with real or mock juries, the possible research questions, and whether reform of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would be necessary

Criminal law in the shadows: creating offences in delegated legislation

Substantial numbers of criminal offences are created in the UK in delegated legislation, often carrying heavy maximum penalties. The majority are created in statutory instruments passed under the negative resolution procedure, which offers very limited opportunity for scrutiny and does not involve a parliamentary vote. This phenomenon has slipped under the radar of orthodox criminal law scholarship, where debate has focused primarily on the criteria that should be used to determine the content of the criminal law and on the principles to which such offences should conform, rather than on the process of creating criminal offences. Creating offences in delegated legislation raises questions of democratic legitimacy and has resulted in criminal offences being created which do not conform to basic principles of fair notice and proportionality of penalty. To address this, we propose that parliamentary approval should be required for all serious offences. It would be impractical to do this for all criminal offences, and direct participation in the legislative process via consultation can act as an alternative (or additional) legitimating principle. This does, however, require that the consultation process complies with certain basic minimum requirements, and we explain how these requirements might appropriately be framed

Causes of wrongful conviction

No abstract available

A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review

In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale.1 Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017