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

58 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 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

    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