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 journalArticlepeer-review

    72 Citations (Scopus)


    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
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2011


    • Forensic science
    • Footwear
    • Interpretation
    • Bayesian inference
    • Likelihood ratio


    Dive into the research topics of 'Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this