Comment: R. v Chall and others [2019] EWCA Crim 865

Discusses the role of expert evidence where a sentencing guideline requires a judge to assess the degree of psychological harm suffered by the victim of an offence

Finding a Willing Supervisor for an Unfit Defendant

Explores the rules surrounding the making of Supervision Orders under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. Discusses the difficulties faced by courts in identifying a supervisor, as required by the legislation

Comment: R v Nolan 2022 EWCA Crim 726, 2022 2 Cr App R (S)

Discusses credit for plea where a case is initially adjourned for a psychiatric report as to fitness to plead to be obtained

Comment: R v Dunster 2021 EWCA Crim 1555

Discusses difficulties that arose in attempting to clarify expert DNA evidence for a jury in retirement

Comment: R v Burrows 2019 EWCA Crim 889, 2019 Crim LR 1066

Discusses the difficulties that arise when the court and advocates fail to appreciate the implications of s.22A Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, under which low-value shop theft became a summary offence

Forensic science, reliability and scientific validity: Advice from America

In this article we review an important report produced by the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (the PCAST report).2 The PCAST report builds on an earlier report prepared by the National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward published in 2009 (the NRC report).3 These reports are focused on the organisation, funding and practice of the forensic sciences in the US. In their deliberate and unflinching concern with probative value, particularly the validity and reliability of procedures used by forensic scientists and the way opinions are expressed in expert reports and testimony, both have application to England and Wales. Both reports speak directly to forensic scientists, law enforcement, lawyers and courts. Forensic scientists, advocates, judges and legislators must respond to these criticisms and recommendations if we hope to place the forensic sciences on firm scientific foundations.

Images, Investigators, Identification, Code D and the Court of Appeal

The rapid rise in accessibility and portability of cameras has resulted in widespread reliance on the interpretation of images by analysts and investigators in criminal proceedings. Codes of practice, guidance and jurisprudence have evolved to facilitate the admission of opinions as to the identity of offenders (or persons of interest) at trial. In this article we explain why allowing investigators to give opinions as to identity on the basis of familiarity with images or suspects acquired during the course of an investigation is incompatible with mainstream scientific research and advice, and conducive to error. It rests on the flawed assumption that investigators can reliably identify or recognise persons in images, articulate and document the basis of these “identifications”, and avoid the risk of contamination (really cognitive bias) from their knowledge of, or exposure to, domain-irrelevant information. Jurors, who may be invited to conduct their own comparison between an image and the defendant in the dock, are similarly vulnerable to assuming the task is straightforward, as well as contextual and cognitive biases. Using the facts and evidence in R v Yaryare 2020 EWCA Crim 1314 as a case study, we show how case information available to investigators and imaging analysts both informs their interpretations of images and is (re-)presented at trial and on appeal as independent support for their opinions. We identify substantial threats to fairness, proof and rationality and propose that only witnesses with demonstrable expertise should be permitted to testify as to the identity of persons of interest in images

Unfitness to Plead. Volume 1: Report.

This has been produced along with Volume 2: Draft Legislation as a combined document Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 12 January 201

Unfitness to plead and restraining orders: 'a lacuna in the court's armoury'

Discusses the decision in R v Chinegwundoh [2014] EWCA Crim 2649. Explains some of the difficulties that courts may face in imposing supervision orders on those who have been found unfit to plead, and suggests that restraining orders should also be available on disposal