Add to ORKGEvaluates whether Young (Thomas Ross) v HM Advocate (HCJ), which set out a five-stage test of "sufficient reliability" of expert evidence, provides an adequate means of ensuring the reliability of scientific evidence in Scottish criminal cases. Analyses the scope, application and meaning of each of the five elements of the sufficient reliability test. Compares the Scottish approach with that of other Anglo-American jurisdictions
The apparent link between miscarriages of justice in prosecutions involving expert evidence and the ...
This chapter critically evaluates the justification for the current exclusion of experts on the psyc...
This work aims to analyse the legislation proposed by The Law Commission in Great Britain in order t...
Evaluates whether Young (Thomas Ross) v HM Advocate (HCJ), which set out a five-stage test of "suffi...
Through a series of judicial decisions and Practice Directions, the English courts have developed a ...
This paper draws on the article 'Forensic Science, Scientific Validity and Reliability: Advice from ...
An amendment to the Criminal Practice Direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wale...
There is an epistemic crisis in many areas of forensic science. This crisis emerged largely in respo...
Considers the rules of evidence on the admissibility of expert psychological evidence in criminal ca...
The merits of corroborated evidence in criminal trials have been hotly debated in many jurisdictions...
In 2010 in Cadder v HM Advocate the Supreme Court held that Article 6 of the European Convention on ...
A published article by a senior Scottish Judge, Lord Kingsburgh (Sir John Macdonald), in 1898, revea...
In its 2011 report “Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales” (Law Com No.325), ...
Standards for expert testimony in England & Wales have long been described as laissez-faire and in d...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and subsequent revi...
The apparent link between miscarriages of justice in prosecutions involving expert evidence and the ...
This chapter critically evaluates the justification for the current exclusion of experts on the psyc...
This work aims to analyse the legislation proposed by The Law Commission in Great Britain in order t...
Evaluates whether Young (Thomas Ross) v HM Advocate (HCJ), which set out a five-stage test of "suffi...
Through a series of judicial decisions and Practice Directions, the English courts have developed a ...
This paper draws on the article 'Forensic Science, Scientific Validity and Reliability: Advice from ...
An amendment to the Criminal Practice Direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wale...
There is an epistemic crisis in many areas of forensic science. This crisis emerged largely in respo...
Considers the rules of evidence on the admissibility of expert psychological evidence in criminal ca...
The merits of corroborated evidence in criminal trials have been hotly debated in many jurisdictions...
In 2010 in Cadder v HM Advocate the Supreme Court held that Article 6 of the European Convention on ...
A published article by a senior Scottish Judge, Lord Kingsburgh (Sir John Macdonald), in 1898, revea...
In its 2011 report “Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales” (Law Com No.325), ...
Standards for expert testimony in England & Wales have long been described as laissez-faire and in d...
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and subsequent revi...
The apparent link between miscarriages of justice in prosecutions involving expert evidence and the ...
This chapter critically evaluates the justification for the current exclusion of experts on the psyc...
This work aims to analyse the legislation proposed by The Law Commission in Great Britain in order t...