Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T

Charles E. H. Berger, John Buckleton, Christophe Champod, Ian W. Evett, Graham Jackson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

57 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This is a discussion of a number of issues that arise from the recent judgment in R v T [1]. Although the judgment concerned with footwear evidence, more general remarks have implications for all disciplines within forensic science. Our concern is that the judgment will be interpreted as being in opposition to the principles of logical interpretation of evidence. We re-iterate those principles and then discuss several extracts from the judgment that may be potentially harmful to the future of forensic science. A position statement with regard to evidence evaluation, signed by many forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers, has appeared in this journal [2] and the present paper expands on the points made in that statement.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-49
Number of pages7
JournalScience & Justice
Volume51
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

appeal
evaluation
evidence
statistician
science
lawyer
opposition
interpretation

Cite this

Berger, C. E. H., Buckleton, J., Champod, C., Evett, I. W., & Jackson, G. (2011). Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Science & Justice, 51(2), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005
Berger, Charles E. H. ; Buckleton, John ; Champod, Christophe ; Evett, Ian W. ; Jackson, Graham. / Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. In: Science & Justice. 2011 ; Vol. 51, No. 2. pp. 43-49.
@article{87077745663343e0a6e4dbce5285c3c3,
title = "Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T",
abstract = "This is a discussion of a number of issues that arise from the recent judgment in R v T [1]. Although the judgment concerned with footwear evidence, more general remarks have implications for all disciplines within forensic science. Our concern is that the judgment will be interpreted as being in opposition to the principles of logical interpretation of evidence. We re-iterate those principles and then discuss several extracts from the judgment that may be potentially harmful to the future of forensic science. A position statement with regard to evidence evaluation, signed by many forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers, has appeared in this journal [2] and the present paper expands on the points made in that statement.",
author = "Berger, {Charles E. H.} and John Buckleton and Christophe Champod and Evett, {Ian W.} and Graham Jackson",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "43--49",
journal = "Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society",
issn = "1355-0306",
publisher = "Forensic Science Society",
number = "2",

}

Berger, CEH, Buckleton, J, Champod, C, Evett, IW & Jackson, G 2011, 'Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T', Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005

Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. / Berger, Charles E. H.; Buckleton, John; Champod, Christophe; Evett, Ian W.; Jackson, Graham.

In: Science & Justice, Vol. 51, No. 2, 06.2011, p. 43-49.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T

AU - Berger, Charles E. H.

AU - Buckleton, John

AU - Champod, Christophe

AU - Evett, Ian W.

AU - Jackson, Graham

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - This is a discussion of a number of issues that arise from the recent judgment in R v T [1]. Although the judgment concerned with footwear evidence, more general remarks have implications for all disciplines within forensic science. Our concern is that the judgment will be interpreted as being in opposition to the principles of logical interpretation of evidence. We re-iterate those principles and then discuss several extracts from the judgment that may be potentially harmful to the future of forensic science. A position statement with regard to evidence evaluation, signed by many forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers, has appeared in this journal [2] and the present paper expands on the points made in that statement.

AB - This is a discussion of a number of issues that arise from the recent judgment in R v T [1]. Although the judgment concerned with footwear evidence, more general remarks have implications for all disciplines within forensic science. Our concern is that the judgment will be interpreted as being in opposition to the principles of logical interpretation of evidence. We re-iterate those principles and then discuss several extracts from the judgment that may be potentially harmful to the future of forensic science. A position statement with regard to evidence evaluation, signed by many forensic scientists, statisticians and lawyers, has appeared in this journal [2] and the present paper expands on the points made in that statement.

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 43

EP - 49

JO - Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

JF - Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

SN - 1355-0306

IS - 2

ER -