Mike Redmayne's research while affiliated with The London School of Economics and Political Science and other places

Publications (16)

Article
This note analyses the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber judgment in Al‐Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, and gives it a cautious welcome. The note suggests how English Courts might respond to the judgment and concludes by assessing justifications for strong confrontation rights and the wider political context of the Grand Chamber's...
Article
Full-text available
Analyses the Court of Appeal judgment in R. v T in which the court in remarking on shoeprint comparison evidence considered how expert witnesses, in particular forensic scientists, should present their evidence in court and the types and quality of the data they can draw on when formulating their conclusions. Identifies what the court had to say ab...
Article
Full-text available
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v T [1] raises several issues relating to the evaluation of scientific evidence that, we believe, require a response. We, the undersigned, oppose any response to the judgment that would result in a movement away from the use of logical methods for evidence evaluation. A paper in this issue of the Journal [2]...
Article
The right to confront adverse witnesses has brought the English courts into conflict with the European Court of Human Rights. Drawing on confrontation doctrine in Europe and the United States, this paper argues that there is no convincing rationale for the sort of strong confrontation right found under the ECHR and the US constitution. A more pragm...
Article
A simple way of understanding standards of proof is in terms of degrees of probability. On this account, to prevail in a civil case a claimant need only prove the defendant's liability to a degree above 0.5. For the prosecution to succeed in a criminal case, it needs to prove guilt to a considerably higher degree: 0.95, say. The proof paradoxes are...
Article
In 1994 England and Wales made substantial modifications to the right to silence by allowing fact-finders to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's failure to answer questions at police interview and failure to testify at trial. This article conducts an in-depth examination of these changes, framed by the question whether similar reforms would...
Article
As accounts of evidential reasoning, theories of subjective probability face a serious limitation: they fail to show how features of the world should constrain probability assessments. This article surveys various theories of objective probability, noting how they overcome this problem, and highlighting the difficulties there might be in applying t...
Article
This is the introductory chapter to Roberts and Redmayne (eds.), Innovations in Evidence & Proof (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2007). This volume brings together fifteen leading scholars and experienced law teachers based in Australia, Canada, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, the USA, and England and Wales to explore and debate the latest deve...
Article
While recognized in a large number of jurisdictions, the privilege against self-incrimination proves hard to justify. This article attempts to develop a rationale for the privilege which avoids the usual pitfalls. It argues that the most compelling rationale for the privilege is that it serves as a distancing mechanism, allowing defendants to disas...
Article
Books reviewed: Evans - Freedom of Religion Under the ECHR Garland - The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society Cole - Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification Alldridge - Relocating Criminal Law Leigh - Law, Politics, and Local Democracy
Article
This article considers how statistical reasoning changes conceptions of evidence and proof. Beginning with three Court of Appeal judgments in which proof is quantified, it traces the implications of statistical ways of thinking about proof through the law of criminal evidence. This leads to the bizarre conclusion that proof is, by and large, imposs...
Article
The publication of Auld LJ's review of the English criminal courts may herald significant reform of the trial process. It is argued that recommendations to retain the jury whilst subjecting its decision-making to greater judicial control, and restricting proper research into its operation, lack a coherent foundation and may prove problematic in pra...
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, following public inquiries (for example, the Goudge Inquiry, 2007–08), reviews (for example, the US National Academy of Science, 2009; the Law Commission of England and Wales, 2011), systematic analysis of wrongful convictions (for example, Innocence Projects) and empirical studies, weaknesses with many types of forensic science an...

Citations

... But perhaps the biggest shift in the narrative deployed by forensic science with regard to characterizing uncertainty is in addressing the quantifiable or unquantifiable nature of uncertainty. Until recently, the most popular response to evaluating uncertainty in forensic science has been that of quantification, supported to a great extent by a number of academics and policymakers 29,87 . The measurement of uncertainty was a significant topic of discussion in the National Academy of Science's seminal report 29 , while reports and guidance documents of the Forensic Science Regulator have regularly highlighted it 67,88 . ...
... Commonly occurring misunderstandings have even been given names, e. g., the "prosecutor's fallacy" and the "defense attorney's fallacy" (Thompson & Schurmann [69]). There are many examples of legal rulings in which judges have misunderstood the meaning of a likelihood ratio (the England & Wales Court of Appeal 2010 ruling in R v T is an infamous example; see, e.g., Berger et al. [70]; Redmayne et al. [71]; Morrison [72]; Thompson [73]). Results of empirical research on lay understanding of expressions of strength of evidence are mixed (Eldridge [74]; Martire & Edmond [75]). ...
... But there are different ways to interpret the probabilities in this ratio. Possible interpretations form a continuum from objective (i.e., 'probability is in the world') to subjective (i.e., 'probability is in the head') (Redmayne, 2003). Which interpretation we choose matters a great deal both for how we should assess this ratio and for Bayesianism's normative status. ...
... ,Buchak (2014),Blome- Tillmann (2015;,Gardiner (2018, forthcoming-b),Moss (2018b;, andBolinger (2020). For surveys, seeRedmayne (2008),Gardiner (2019a), andRoss (2021). ...
... However, the Supreme Court in Horncastle 65 has confirmed that the right to confront a witness is not unqualified and that where there are safeguards to protect the fairness of the trial, exceptions are permissible. 66 As Heffernan succinctly states: 'If confrontation is a right grounded in the personal dignity of the accused then it must make space for the dignity rights of others within the trial process' (Heffernan, 2016: 107; see also Redmayne, 2012). Even where the conviction secured is based solely on hearsay evidence, the court has justified its inclusion, despite the witness being available, although, for prescribed reasons 67 on the basis that the legal framework provides an inherent code of fairness. ...
... Why is that? Because evidentiary arguments are constructed and received under factual uncertainty (Redmayne 2006). As an additional aspect, reasoning is performed when evidence is assessed to determine its probative value. ...
... For example, in the provisions that govern the procedural collection of information about crimes, it is possible to take by force a blood sample from the alleged perpetrator, but it is generally prohibited to force someone to testify against themselves (cf. Redmayne 2007). In the language of Cartesian dualism, we could say that the content of the mind is protected and the content of the body is not. ...