Review: International Criminal Evidence
| Author | Robert Cryer |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571270300700308 |
| Published date | 01 July 2003 |
| Date | 01 July 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
REVIEWS
before them. The expert has begun to challenge the whole notion that an
independent lay trier is able to assess the reliability of evidence and draw
appropriate inferences from scientific facts. Particularly in civil cases, the ‘battle
of the experts’ seems to challenge the notion of rectitude altogether, whereas, at
the other extreme, experts presenting
DNA
analysis almost inevitably appear to
be usurping the authority of the fact-finder. Neither of these developments
receives detailed treatment from Dennis (although he does lament in the Preface
not having had time to deal with expert evidence in more principled detail).
Dennis’s book reflects the evolution of English evidence law, from a law applying
equally in civil and criminal cases, applying at trial, and concerned only with
rectitude, to a law which distinguishes between civil and criminal cases, is
concerned with how evidence is assembled before trial, and recognises that there
are issues beyond rectitude that need to be considered. It brings this evolution to
the forefront whilst providing detailed contextual discussion of principal
legislation and leading cases. It is an important and stimulating work.
ANDREW LlGERlWOOD
Universitv
of
Adelaide,
South
Australia
Richard May and Marieke Wierda
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
Ardsley, New York: Transnational Publishers (2003)
xxiv
+
369pp, $125 hb
All too often, anyone reported in the media as being charged with a war crime,
crime against humanity,
or
genocide is assumed to be guilty before the suspect
is
taken into custody, never mind being tried. In some ways this is understandable.
There is an entirely appropriate desire to punish those responsible for very serious
crimes. Even those considered ‘small-fry’ in terms of international criminality
would often be considered exceptionally serious criminals at the domestic level.
And many of them are indeed guilty of heinous crimes. But the fact that trial by
media
is
understandable does not make it right. The presumption of innocence
is
not a principle to be ignored at will, and guilt is a matter of proof, not
supposition, proof requires evidence.
Evidence
is
a matter that, the
Tadit
anonymous witnesses decision (IT-94-1-T,
Decision on Protective Measures,
10
August 1995) aside, has not received much
attention in international law. This is beginning to change,
as
shown by the British
Institute of International and Comparative Law’s recent project on evidence before
216
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF
EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial