Trying delays: Forensic disadvantage in child sexual assault trials

Criminal Law Review

Volumn , Issue 9, 2010, Pages 671-689

  Hamer, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956947485     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (298)

1. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [33] (Wood CJ. at CL).
2. See, e.g. Jennifer Temkin and Barbara Krahě, Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude (Hart Publishing: 2008);
3. See also. A (Complainants Sexual History) [2001] UKHL 25; [2002]
4. AC. 45, 71 (Lord Hope).
5. Johnston (1998) 45 N. S. W. L. R. 362 at 367 (Spigelman C. J.);
6. see also M (1994) 181 C. L. R. 487 at 514 (Gaudron J.)
7. Johnston (1998) 45 N. S. W. L. R. 362 at 367
8. quoting from Kilby (1973) 129 C. L. R. 460 at 465.
9. Johnston (1998) 45 N. S. W. L. R. 362 at 367.
10. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) s. 61 (i) (b) (i);
11. see also, e.g. Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (N. S. W.) s.294 (2) (b).
12. See Crofts (1996) 186 C. L. R. 427.
13. See Crofts (1996) 186 C. L. R. 427 at 451-452.
14. Judicial Studies Board, Online Reference, Criminal Law, Evidence, para.37.1. http.l/www.jsboard. co.uk/criminal-law/cbb/mf-04b.htm [Accessed June 23, 2010].
15. GPP (2001) 129 A. Crim. R. 1 at [70] (Heydon J. A.).
16. Attorney Generals Reference (No. 1 of 1990) [1992] Q. B 630;
17. Smolinski [2004] EWCA Crim 1270;
18. Cr. App. R. 40;
19. Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691;
20. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849;
21. [2010] Crim. L. R. 226;
22. Jago (1989) 168 C. L. R. 23 at 49-50, 76;
23. Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 C. L. R. 509; 529;
24. Doggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [140].
25. Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79.
26. Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79 at 91 (Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ.).
27. See also Doggell (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [140] (Kirby J.).
28. Recent English decisions resulting in a permanent stay of prosecution: Joynson [2008] EWCA Crim 3049;
29. Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691;
30. Sheikh [2006] EWCA Crim 2625;
31. B [2003] EWCA Crim 319;
32. [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 13 (p. 197);
33. O Dell Unreported November 10, 2000;
34. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3 March 27, 2000;
35. cf. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849 at [39];
36. [2010] Crim. L. R. 226.
37. Collard [2008] W. A. S. C. A. 47 at [4];
38. BFB (2003) 87 S. A. S. R at 278, 283;
39. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at
40. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [35] (Wood C. J. at CL);
41. see also at [118] (Sully J.);
42. Riggall (2008) 37 W. A. R. 211 at [26].
43. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [95];
44. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [111], [118]-[119];
45. DRE (2006) 164 opsA. Crim. R. 400 at [14];
46. AM (2008) 188 A. Crim. R. 457 at [128];
47. TJ [2009] N. S. W. C. C. A 257 at [78], [126];
48. Inston (2009) 103 S. A. S. R. 265 at [58H61], [109H110], [124];
49. Damon-Ryan (2009) 104 S. A. S. R. 571 at [79];
50. GBT [2009] W. A. S. C. A. 19 at [27].
51. See e.g. Hancock EWCA, Crim Div, 9606335 Y5, October 22, 1997;
52. W [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201 CA (Crim Div).
53. Daggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343;
54. see also GPP (2001) 129 A. Crim. R. 1 at [60];
55. Hunt [2008] W. A. S. C. A. 210 at [97], [19];
56. cf. Doggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [9] (Gleeson C. J., dissenting);
57. at [87]-[88] (McHugh J., dissenting);
58. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [76]-[77], [97], [115] (Sully J.);
59. Tully (2006) 230 C. L. R. 234 at [132] (Callinan J.), at [178] (Crennan J.);
60. C. R. Williams, "Warnings occasioned by delay in paedophile prosecutions" (2003) 27 Crim. L. J. 70, 75.
61. Seigneur [2009] S. A. S. C. 59 at [13] (Gray J.).
62. This has not been adopted in all Australian jurisdictions, and is not entirely consistent in those jurisdictions that have adopted it: Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law, 8th edn (LBC Information Services, 2009), pp. 1, 14-16.
63. Evidence Act 2008
64. (Vic.) and Evidence Act 1995
65. (Cth.). Evidence Act 1995
66. (N-S. W.) Makes reference to "application by a party". Note s.165B (3): "The judge need not comply with subsection (2) if there are good reasons for not doing so."
67. Evidence Act 2001
68. (Tas.) does not contain this recent amendment Similar versions previously appeared as Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) ss.61 (1A);
69. Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (N. S. W.) s.294 (3).
70. The recently added Evidence Act 1929 (S. A.) S.34CB does not make the giving of a direction turn upon a request.
71. Identical in the N. S. W., Cth. and Vic. Acts. Evidence Act 1929 (S. A.) s.34CB (3) (b) is very similar.
72. See also Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) ss.61 (l) (b) (iii), 61 (1B).
73. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613.
74. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) s.61
75. overlapping in some respects with Evidence Act 2008 (Vic.) S.165B.
76. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [65] (2) - (4).
77. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [75].
78. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [72] (Kellam J. A.)
79. quoting from Crofts (1996) 186 C. L. R. 427, 451-452.
80. See also (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [101] (Hansen AJ. A., agreeing), cf. at [41H46] (Ashley J. A.).
81. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [85] (Kellam J. A.).
82. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [65] (15), at [85].
83. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [90] (Kellam J. A.), at [5], [40] (Ashley JA., agreeing), at [101] (Hansen A. J. A., agreeing).
84. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [65] (14).
85. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [88], [92] (Kellam J. A.), at [40] (Ashley J. A.).
86. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [90], [92] (Kellam J. A.), at [40] (Ashley J. A.).
87. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [91] (Kellam J. A.).
88. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [93] (Kellam J. A.), at [5], [40] (Ashley J. A., agreeing), at [101] (Hansen A. J. A., agreeing).
89. Penney Lewis, Delayed Prosecution for Childhood Sexual Abuse (Oxford University Press, 2006) p. 140.
90. Joynson [2008] EWCA Crim 3049.
91. Joynson [2008] EWCA Crim 3049 at [35] (emphasis added).
92. Joynson [2008] EWCA Crim 3049 at [34] (emphasis added).
93. See also Wilkinson [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 81 at 86.
94. MM [2004] N. S. W. C. CA 81 at [115] (emphasis added).
95. MM [2004] N. S. W. C. CA 81 at [115];
96. see also Inston (2009) 103 S. A. S. R. 265 at [112];
97. Hunt [2008] W. A. S. C. A. 210 at [16].
98. James Wood, "Complaint and Medical Examination Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials" (2003) 15 Judicial Officers'Bulletin 63, 64;
99. see also BWT (2002) 54 N. S. WX. R. 241 at [19] (Wood CJ. at CL), [95], [116]-[117] (Sully J.);
100. Doggell (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [10] (Gleeson C. J., dissenting);
101. Lewis, Delayed Prosecution, 2006, p. 152.
102. Report into Uniform Evidence Law (A. L. R. C. Report 102
103. N. S. W. L. R. C Report 112
104. V. L. R. C. Final Report), para.18.121;
105. N. S. W. L. R. C. dissenting, para.18.141.
106. See previously, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (N. S. W.) s.294 (5);
107. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic.) s.61 (lC).
108. Evidence Act 1929 (S. A.) S.34
109. CB lacks a comparable provision, but see Inston (2009) 103 S. A. S. R. 265 at [107] (Vanstone J.).
110. GS [2003] N. S. W. C. C. A 73 at [61] (Smart J.).
111. Stephen Odgers, "Editorial: Sexual Offences Procedural Reform" (2005) 29 Crim. LJ. 5.
112. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [143] (Kirby J.)
113. see also [100] (Greg James J.);
114. MM [2004] N. S. W. C. C. A 81 at [160], [182];
115. DBG (2002) 133 A. Crim. R. 227 at [37]-[38];
116. JJB (2006) 161 A. Crim. R. 187 at [95];
117. GS [2003] N. S. WC. CA 73 at [143].
118. C [2002] EWCA Crim 312 at [24];
119. see also Crampton (2000) 206 C. L. R. 161 at [45] (Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan J. J.), at [130H132] (Kirby J.).
120. C [2002] EWCA Crim 312 at [24].
121. M [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 49;
122. [1999] Crim. L. R. 922 CA (Crim Div);
123. quoted in C [2002] EWCA Crim 312 at [23].
124. See also DF (EWCA Crim Div, No. 9805760/X2, May 4, 1999):
125. "[T]he authorities are unanimous in stating that there is a duty upon a trial judge in ordinary circumstances to direct the jury as to the difficulties faced by the defence when required to present a case after many years of delay."
126. w [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201 at 202 CA (Crim Div);
127. Gy [2006] EWCA Crim 1939 at [27].
128. See also, Scott Henchcliffe, "Abuse of process and delay in criminal prosecutions - Current law and practice" (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 1, 10.
129. Polyukhovich (S. A. S. C., Dec. 22, 1992) 10;
130. see also McCarthy (N. S. W. C. C. A, Aug. 12, 1994, Gleeson C. J.);
131. W. R. C. (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [80] (Hodgson J. A.).
132. W [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201 at 202 CA (Crim Div).
133. W [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201 at 212 CA (Crim Div).
134. Hancock [1997] EWCA Crim 2561.
135. Hancock [1997] EWCA Crim 2561.
136. See also M [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 49, 54-55, 58;
137. [1999] Crim. L. R. 922 CA (Crim Div).
138. Hancock [1997] EWCA Crim 2561.
139. AM (2008) 188 A. Crim. R. 457.
140. AM (2008) 188 A. Crim. R. 457 at [143]
141. see also [20] (Steytler R);
142. Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [90] (Ketlam J. A.);
143. Crampton (2000) 206 C. L. R. 161 at [130]-[132] (Kirby J.).
144. See, e.g. N. J. Schweitzer & Michael J. Saks, "The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects The Public's Expectations About Real Forensic Science" (2007) 47 Jurimetrics Journal 357, 358.
145. Johnston (1998) 45 N. S. W. L. R. 362, 370 (Spigelman C. J.).
146. See, e.g. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849 at [48];
147. TE [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 36 at [18];
148. W [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201 at 212;
149. Wilkinson [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 81 at 86;
150. B. J. [2009] S. A. S. C. 110 at[34];
151. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [19]-[20];
152. N. S. W. L. R. C, Jury Directions Consultation Paper 4 (2008), para.7.50.
153. Jones (1997) 191 C. L. R. 439 at 455 (Gaudron J., McHugh J. and Gummow J.)
154. see also 446 (Brennan C. J.);
155. B [2005] EWCA Crim 29 at [40]-[41].
156. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849 at [39], [47].
157. As wrongly suggested by Henchcliffe, "Abuse of Process" (2002) 22 Australian Bar Review 1, 10.
158. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000.
159. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000 at [34];
160. see also Aliv Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691.
161. TE [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 36.
162. TE [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 36 at [19].
163. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849.
164. MacKreth [2009] EWCA Crim 1849 at [62];
165. note that a direction on forensic disadvantage had been provided which was not the subject of defence criticism: at [27], [51]
166. See B [2005] EWCA Crim 29.
167. See B [2005] EWCA Crim 29 at [19].
168. In this case, unlike TE [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. 36, the court considered weaknesses with the complainant's evidence to undermine the safety of the conviction, rather than offset the defendant's forensic disadvantage.
169. See BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241.
170. See BHT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [19].
171. Doggetl (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [81]. Gleeson C. J. and McHugh J. both noted that, as a matter of strategy, the defendant may not welcome a Longman direction where there is corroborating evidence since it would have to be accompanied by some reference to the existence of this evidence:
172. Doggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [87]-[88] (McHugh J.), at [9] (Gleeson C. J.);
173. see also above fn. 9.
174. Doggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [137] (Kirby J.).
175. Doggell (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [54] (Gaudron and Callinan J. J.).
176. Doggell (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [136] (Kirby J.).
177. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [95] (3Xe) (italics in original).
178. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [95] (3) (e);
179. see also AM (2008) 188 A. Crim. R. 457 at [17] (Steytler P.).
180. For more liberal interpretations: FVK [2002] VSCA 225 at [130]-[131] (Phillips J. C. J.)
181. see also [145] (Ormiston J. A.).
182. For stricter interpretations: GPP (2001) 129 A. Crim. R. 1 at [61]-[63] (Heydon J. A.);
183. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [83] (Greg James J.), at [150] (Kirby J.), cf. [74]-[76] (Hodgson J. A., dissenting).
184. Section 165B (2) of the N. S. W., Cth. and Vic. Evidence Acts;
185. Evidence Act 1929 (S. A.) s.34CB (2).
186. Button [1994] Crim. L. R. 910.
187. Quoted in W [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 201, 207-08 CA (Crim Div).
188. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000.
189. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000 at [19].
190. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000 at [19].
191. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000 at [19].
192. Turner EWCA Crim Div, 1999/01555/X3, March 27, 2000 at [19].
193. See also Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691. Both the complainants, S and T, had applied for criminal injuries compensation. S's application was shown to be "false in significant respects", damaging her credibility at [16]. T's application had been lost "For all anyone knew, that application was wholly consistent with T's account [at trial]. But the fact that S's account was untrue and exaggerated is relevant. Both girls were still friends, living near to each other, so we were told. It is unlikely that they did not discuss their applications to the OCA." (At [34]
194. JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788.
195. JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788 at [13].
196. JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788 at [27].
197. JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788 at [27].
198. Percival (EWCA Crim Div, 97/6746/X4, June 19, 1998). At trial the complainant testified that many of the allegations he had previously made against the defendant actually involved another man who had worked at the same school, Lamarck. The complainant only realised this when he testified at Lamarck's trial a short time before Percival's trial.
199. Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691.
200. Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691 at [36].
201. All v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691 at [37].
202. Ali v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWCA Crim 691 at [36]-[37].
203. See B [2005] EWCA Crim 29 at [43].
204. See B [2005] EWCA Crim 29 at [43].
205. See B [2005] EWCA Crim 29 at [42].
206. M [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 49;
207. [1999] Crim. L. R. 922 CA (Crim Div).
208. M [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 49 at 54.
209. [1999] Crim. L. R. 922 CA (Crim Div).
210. M [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 49 at 58;
211. [1999] Crim. L. R. 922 CA (Crim Div).
212. see also Ferrisey [2002] EWCA Crim 2405 at [17]-[19].
213. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [22]
214. citing e.g. Jones (1997) 191 C. L. R. 439 at 455 (Gaudron J., McHugh J. and Gummow J.).
215. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [13] (emphasis in original); e.g. the references to "significant", "great" and "serious"
216. disadvantage in Crampton (2000) 206 C. L. R. 161 at [45] (Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan J J.), at [140] (Hayne J.), at [131], [132] (Kirby J.).
217. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [23].
218. BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 163 at [2], [40]
219. see also [107]-[118] (Sully J.).
220. JJB (2006) 161 A. Crim. R. 187 at [97];
221. see also MM [2004] N. S. W. C. CA 81 at [124] (Howie J.).
222. GVV (2008) 20 V. R. 395 at [65] (Maxwell P. and Ashley J. A. agreeing);
223. see also Taylor (No. 2) (2008) 18 V. R. 613 at [92];
224. IAB [2009] V. S. C. A. 229 at [88]-[90];
225. GBT [2009] W. A. S. C. A. 19 at [30];.
226. AM (2008) 188 A. Crim. R. 457 at [142], [146] (Miller J. A.), cf. at [204] (Murray A. J. A. J. A.).
227. Dawson-Ryan (2009) 104 S. A. S. R. 571 at [70], [80]-[82].
228. Dawson-Ryan (2009) 103 S. A. S. R. 265.
229. Dawson-Ryan (2009) 103 S. A. S. R. 265 at [112].
230. Section 165B (2) of the N. S. W., Cth. and Vic. Evidence Acts;
231. Evidence Act 1929 (S. A.) s.34CB (2).
232. jagov District Court of N. S. W. (1989) 168 C. L. R. 23 at 60 (Deane J.);
233. see also Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79 at 100 (Deane J.).
234. Doggett (2001) 208 C. L. R. 343 at [94] (McHugh J.).
235. Pmwa/EWCA Crim Div, 97/6746/X4, June 19, 1998;
236. see also JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788 at [26];
237. Bowley [1996] Crim. L. R. 406 at 407 CA (Crim Div);
238. quoted in Jamieson (EWCA Crim Div, 96/3404/W3, October 15, 1996).
239. GBT [2009] W. A. S. CA. 19 at [30] (Martin C. J. and Miere AJ. A. J. A. agreeing);
240. see also Odgers "Editorial" (2005) 29 Crim. L. J. 5, 6.
241. GOT [2009] W. A. S. C. A. 19 at [30].
242. Perecivo/EWCA Crim Div, 97/6746/X4, June 19, 1998.
243. JS [2008] EWCA Crim 2788 at [26].
244. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [118] (Greg James J.).
245. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [118] (Greg James J.).
246. See e.g. PC [1999] 21. R. 25 at 78 (Lynch J.)
247. quoted in Lewis, Delayed Prosecution, 2006, pp. 84-85.
248. See also BWT (2002) 54 N. S. W. L. R. 241 at [15]-[16] (Wood C. J.).
249. Van der Meer (1988) 82 A. L. R. 10 at 31 (Deane J.).
250. Lewis, Delayed Prosecution, 2006, p. 148.
251. Lewis, Delayed Prosecution, 2006, p. 148.
252. WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at [100];
253. see also above fn. 49.
254. Lewis, Delayed Prosecution, 2006, p. 148
255. quoting from Wood, "Complaint" (2003) 15 Judicial Officers' Bulletin 63:
256. see also WRC (2002) 130 A. Crim. R. 89 at[141] (Kirby J.);
257. N. S. W. L. R. C 112, para. 18.135.
258. Mirjam DamaSka, "Presentation of evidence and fact-finding precision" (1975) 123 University o/Pennsylvania Law Review 1083, 1094
259. quoting from M. E. Frankel, "The search for truth: An umpireal view" (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1031, 1039;
260. see also John Langbein, "The German advantage in Civil Procedure" (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823, 833-834.
261. John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 1367 (Peter Tillers edn, 1983).
262. See more recently Jules Epstein, "Cross-examination: Seemingly Ubiquitous, Purportedly Omnipotent, and At Risk" (2009) 14 Widener Law Review 427;
263. Chris William Sanchirico, "What Makes the Engine Go? Cognitive Limitations and Cross-examination" (2009) 14 Widener Law Review 507.
264. M. Hale, THe History of the Common Law of England (1739, CM. Gray edn, 1971) p. 164.
265. See Symposium, "Cross-Examination: The Great (?) Engine" (2009) 14 Widener Law Review.
266. H. L. A. Hart, 'Bentham and the demystification of the law' (1973) 36 Modern Law Review 2, 15;
267. Works of Jeremy Bentham VII (Bowring edn, 1838-1843), p. 454.
268. N. S. W. L. R. C 112, para.18.145, adding "[n]or... could such a challenge be successfully mounted since it would ultimately have to dispute the relevance of forensic disadvantage arising from delay to the incidents of a fair trial".
269. Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Limited [1968] 2 Q. B. 229 at 255
270. [1968] 2 W. L. R. 366 (Diplock L. J.);
271. see also Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79 at 108 (McHugh J.).
272. Richard Friedman, "Assessing Evidence" (1996) 94 Michigan Law Review 1810, 1819;
273. Nance, "The Weights of Evidence" [2008] Episleme 267, 268.
274. Hock Lai Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law-Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 166.
275. Nance, "Weights" [2008] Episleme 267, 268;
276. L Brilmayer and L Komhauser, "Review: Quantitative Methods and Legal Decisions" (1978) 146 University of Chicago Law Review 116, 144;
277. Alex Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 47-48.
278. Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] A. C. 750 at 787;
279. [1987] 3 W. L. R. 232 HL (Lord Mackay);
280. discussing Herskovits v Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (1983) 664 P2d. 474 at 491 (Brachtenbach J., dissenting);
281. see also L. J. Cohen, "Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?" (1981) 4 THe Behavioral and Brain Sciences 317, 329;
282. James Brook "The Use of Statistical Evidence of Identification in Civil Litigation: Well-Worn Hypotheticals, Real Cases, and Controversy." (1985) 29 St Louis University Law Journal 293-346.
283. Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79 at 98-99.
284. JSB, Criminal Law, Evidence, para.37.1, http://mvw.jsboard.co.uk/ criminal-law/cbb/mf-04b.htm [Accessed June 23, 2010];
285. Longman (1989) 168 C. L. R. 79 at 91.
286. W. C. Salmon, THe Foundations of Scientific Inference (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967), p. 65;
287. Cohen, Probable and Provable, (USA: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 19;
288. Stein, Foundations, (2005), p. 79.
289. Stein, Foundations, (2005), p. 120;
290. see also at pp. 97-100, 228.
291. Stein and Ho have suggested that this is a rationale for the hearsay rule-the risk that "[the declarant], if called, would have given such evidence as would defeat the justification we presently have for the inference we want to draw from the [hearsay statement]": Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law-lustice in the Search for Truth (2008), p. 278.
292. See also Mike Redmayne, "Exploring the Proof Paradoxes" (2008) 14 Legal Theory 281, 291.
293. Davis BC9507899 (June 23 1995) 21.
294. B [2003] EWCA Crim 319;
295. [2003] 2 Cr. App. R. 13 at [27].
296. See also Nance, "Weights" [2008] Episteme 267, 274-277;
297. J. Koehler and D. N. Shaviro, "Veridical Verdicts: Increasing Verdict Accuracy through the use of Overtly Probabilistic Evidence and Methods" (1990) 75 Cornell Law Review 247;
298. David Kaye, "Naked statistical evidence" (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 601.