Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 July 2011 |
| Date | 01 July 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2011.15.3.382 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
Expert evidence—England and Wales
‘Expert evidence, particularly scientific evidence, can have a very persuasive effect
on juries. But the current law governing its admissibility is far from satisfactory.
And the courts have no clear guidelines for determining whether the expert
evidence is sufficiently reliable to be put before the jury. The Commission sets out
a series of measures that the courts can use to reduce the prospect of unreliable
expert evidence being used in criminal trials.’
Law Commission, Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Law
Com. No. 325 (March 2011), available at <http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommis
sion/docs/lc325_Expert_Evidence_Report.pdf>, accessed 5 May 2011.
Presumption—Hong Kong
‘The existing common law presumption that a boy under 14 is incapable of sexual
intercourse cannot be rebutted, even where there is clear evidence that the boy
was physically capable of, and had had, sexual intercourse. The result is that,
regardless of the circumstances, a boy under 14 years of age cannot be convicted of
rape, even though he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a non-consenting
victim …
The report argues that whatever the historical rationale for the presumption may
have been, it is difficult to see what purpose the rule now serves. It is contrary to
common sense that the law in Hong Kong should refuse to accept that a boy under
14 may be capable of sexual intercourse, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
The application of the presumption is at odds with reality and means that on
occasion the true criminality of the defendant’s conduct cannot be reflected in the
charge.’
doi:10.1350/ijep.2011.15.3.382
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF (2011) 15 E&P 273–276 273
To continue reading
Request your trial