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 journal › Article

  • 46 Citations

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
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Forensic science
Evaluation
Appeal
Signed
Iterate
Expand

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. DOI: 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, Vol. 51, No. 2, 06.2011, p. 43-49.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

@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",
volume = "51",
pages = "43--49",
journal = "Science & Justice",
issn = "1355-0306",
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. DOI: 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 journal › Article

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 & Justice

T2 - Science & Justice

JF - Science & Justice

SN - 1355-0306

IS - 2

ER -

Berger CEH, Buckleton J, Champod C, Evett IW, Jackson G. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Science & Justice. 2011 Jun;51(2):43-49. Available from, DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.03.005

Access to Document