legal systems and court structures
DESCRIPTION
Legal systems, court structures and expert evidence in the UK and USTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Law and Court Structure
Michael BrombyReader in Law
Joseph Bell Centre for
Forensic Statistics
and Legal Reasoning
![Page 2: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Global Systems
• Anglo-American (common law)– UK, USA, Commonwealth nations
• Continental (civil jurisdiction)– Mainland Europe
• Other systems– China, East Asia
![Page 3: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
British Isles
• England and Wales
• Scotland
• N Ireland
• Channel Islands– Jersey– Guernsey (inc Alderney)
• Isle of Man
• Republic of Ireland
![Page 4: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Legal System
• Public Law– Criminal law– Public order– Judicial review
• Private Law– Tort / delict– Negligence– Family law
![Page 5: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Criminal Court Structure
JP Court (prev. District Court)
Sheriff Court
High Court of Justiciary Court of Criminal Appeal (HCJ - Edinburgh)
---
UK Supreme Court (London)(devolution matters)
ECHR (Strasbourg)
(Human Rights related)
ICC (Hague)
(Completely different!)
![Page 6: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
English Crim Court Structure
Magistrates’ Court
Crown Court
Central Criminal Court Court of Appeal (criminal division)
UK Supreme Court (prev. House of Lords)
![Page 7: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
JUDGE
WitnessBox
Clerk
Press
Public Gallery
DOCK
COUNSEL
Prosec. Defence
SOLICITORS
JURY
![Page 8: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Procedure
• Solemn– Accused appears on indictment– by the Lord Advocate (e.g. HMA v Smith)– Jury (facts) and Judge (law)
• Summary– Accused appears on complaint– by the Procurator Fiscal (e.g. PF of Dundee v
Smith)– Judge (facts and law)
![Page 10: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Pleas of the Crown
• High Court of Justiciary only!– Murder– Rape– Treason– Incest– Also:
• Terrorism• Wilful fireraising• Other serious crimes
![Page 11: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Who’s Who?
• Advocate Depute Crown Office• Fiscal (Depute) COPFS (regional)• Solicitor (Defence agent)
• Crown Prosecutor England (CPS Barrister)• DPP NI, Australia• (District) Attorney USA• Crown Attorney Canada
![Page 12: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Burden of Proof
• Criminal– Beyond reasonable doubt– No requirement for defence evidence
• Civil– Balance of probabilities
![Page 13: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Evidence
• Admissibility– Legal issues (judge)
• Reliability– Jury analysis
• Sufficiency– Prima facie case
![Page 14: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Evidence
• Examination in chief– Main points of evidence (probative value)
• Cross examination– Checking of reliability etc
• Re-examination– Opportunity to redress any prejudice
![Page 15: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Legal Requirements
• Actus reus– Commission / omission– “the naughty act”
• Mens rea– Intention to commit a crime– “the naughty thought”
![Page 16: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Legal Requirements
• Act or Omission– Both actus reus and mens rea– Inchoate: attempt / incitement / conspiracy
• Unlawful– Defences – see next slide – Insanity as a bar to trial
• Identification– Eyewitness– Forensics– Corroboration
![Page 17: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Legal Requirements
• Defences may be Complete or Mitigating
• Special Defences– alibi, incrimination, insanity, self-defence,
automatism and coercion
• Defences– Diminished responsibility, provocation,
intoxication, necessity, superior orders
• Why the distinction?
![Page 18: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Part 2
![Page 19: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
(Who’s keeping an eye on the gatekeepers?)
Expert Evidence and Legal Safeguards
for Identification
![Page 20: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Expert Witnesses
• Admissibility of Expert Testimony– Frye v United States (1923) 54 App DC 46
• Exclusive ‘general acceptance test’
• Superseded by Federal Rules of Evidence (702)
• Attack on authority, not content
“In principle, under the Federal Rules no common law of evidence remains. "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided . . . ."
![Page 21: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Expert Witnesses
• Admissibility of Scientific Expertise– Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(1993) 509 US 579• Falsifiability
• Peer review and publication
• General acceptance within the relevant academic community
• Known (or potential) rate of error
• Existence and maintenance of standards
![Page 22: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Expert Witnesses
• Admissibility of Technical Expertise– Kumho Tire v Carmichael (1999) 526 US 137
• Relevant and reliable
• Applies to all expertise, not just scientific
• May rely on experience and judgment
• Daubert criteria may still be applied in these areas
![Page 23: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Expert Witnesses
• Admissibility of Expert Testimony– UK Approach
• Ad hoc admissibility
• Often Daubert factors are touched upon in cross-examination
• Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) well developed regarding expert witnesses in England and Wales
• Similar rules and guidelines now exist for Criminal Law in E+W
![Page 24: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Expert Witnesses
• Admissibility of identification evidence:– DNA, match probabilities– Fingerprints, 16 point match– Faces, lack of database material– Voice, restricted to accent and dialect
• Study of comparison
• Opinion of probability
![Page 25: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Rulings on Types of Expertise
• Inadmissible– Provocation - R v Turner (1975)
– Likelihood of suicide - R v Wood (1990)
– Truthfulness of witnesses - R v MacKenney (1983)
• Admissible– Insanity - R v Homes (1953)
– Diminished responsibility - R v Bailey (1977)
– Automatism - R v Smith (1979)
![Page 26: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Which Approach?
“[T]he correct approach is to admit such evidence based on hearsay and that the judge has a responsibility to warn the jury as to the flimsy or non-existent foundations of the expert evidence”
M. Redmayne
![Page 27: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Ultimate Issue Rule
• Expert opinion permitted in:– R v Stockwell (1993)
• Evidence of identification
– Barings Plc (2001)• Professional negligence
– The judge and jury are not bound to accept an admissible opinion…
• Do they realise this?
![Page 28: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Jury Perceptions
• White coat syndrome
• Number dyslexia
• Baffled by jargon, science and law
• … and by the judge!
• Facts, opinions and alternatives require more separation in court
![Page 29: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Improvements
• Joint minutes/memoranda of understanding
• Written questions and responses
• Single joint experts?!
• Court-appointed experts and assessors
![Page 30: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Legal Safeguards
• Corroboration– Not a legal art in E&W, requirement in
Scotland for all facts to be independently supported by two sources
– Current debate in Scotland about corroboration
• Challenge by the Defence– Clash of expert witness opinion; lack of time or
finances to retain a second expert
![Page 31: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Legal Safeguards
• Common-law Submission– Outwith cross-examination, either party may
suggest that the evidence is unreliable
• Directions to the Jury– Improved judicial knowledge and training in
scientific areas is required
![Page 32: Legal Systems and Court Structures](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022061221/54bf45e74a7959d24a8b4627/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Summary
• Expert evidence may be useful, but not conclusive or sufficiently probative
• Legal safeguards offer some protection, but may not be sufficient either
• Responsibility lies with the professional ethics of the expert, and of the judge