Noticeboard
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712719834684 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
Noticeboard
Law reform and source material
Electronic evidence—Europe
Professor Martin Bose, ‘An assessment of the Commission’s proposals on electronic evidence’ (Euro pean
Union: Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, September 2018), available at:
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604989/IPOL_STU(2018)604989_EN.pdf>.
This study analyses the European Commission’s recent proposals on cross-border access to electronic
evidence, focusing on implications for territoriality and state sovereignty and fundamental rights of
service providers and users.
False evidence; Fabrication of evidence; Miscarriages of justice—India
Law Commission of India, Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies, Report No
277, August 2018, available at: <http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report277.pdf>.
Though principally exploring the sorts of remedies that are and should be available in cases of
‘wrongful prosecution’, this report discusses the problems associated with the giving (and fabrication)
of false evidence, in particular by law enforcement.
Forensic evidence—United Kingdom
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics Strategy and Forensic Services.
Fifth Report of 2017–19 (UK House of Commons, May 2018), available at: <https://publications.parlia
ment.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/800/800.pdf>.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Biometrics Strategy and Forensic Services:
Government’s Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report (UK Hous e of Commons, October 2018),
available at: <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1613/1613.pdf>.
Two members of staff at Randox Testing Services, a private toxicology forensics lab, were arrested in
February 2017 for manipulating test results. The Forensic Science Regulator advised the House of Com-
mons Science and Technology Committee that this would have implications for many criminal and civil
cases, and that existing methods forensuring the quality of forensicswork would need to be reconsidered.
Partly as a responseto the Randox case, the Committeeaddressed issues pertainingto the sustainability of
the ‘forensics market’, and ‘fragmentation’ in the procurement of forensic services.Concerns were raised
about the lack of accreditation among many police in-house forensic services providers. The Committee
further noted thatthe Randox affair illustrated the needfor compliance auditing. It proposed that the remit
of the Forensics Regulator should be extended to the civil courts forensic system, and recommended that
the Regulator be given statutory powers so that it could ensure that forensic providers seek accreditation
and comply with standards. Finally, it urged the government to revisit the 2016 Forensics Strategy. In
October 2018, the government responded, assuring the Committee that a review is under way.
Disclosure of evidence—United Kingdom
House of Commons Justice Committee, Disclosure of Evidence in Criminal Cases—11th Report of
Session 2017–2019 (House of Commons, 20 July 2018), available at: <https://publications.parliament.
uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/859/859.pdf>.
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2019, Vol. 23(1-2) 218–219
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1365712719834684
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
To continue reading
Request your trial