Subject Index
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2009.13.4.368 |
| Published date | 01 November 2009 |
| Date | 01 November 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Subject Index |
SUBJECT INDEX
abuse ofprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358–360
access, right of
production ofthird party records. . 225–231,
249–250
tolawyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148–149
accomplices
warning aboutevidence from . . . . . 243–245
ad hocexpert evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52–54
adjudicative review
in closedproceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–27
admissibility of evidence
closed proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–27
collateralfact rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250–251
excluded evidence used for purposes of
impeachment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
foreign evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259–260
forensic science evidence at the ICTY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–119,127,128
hearsay evidence see hearsay evidence
illegallyobtained search evidence. . 237–239
inadmissible confession, evidence found as
a resultof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–75
informational requirement. . . . . . . . . .61–64
judge’ser ror,impact of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
sniffer dogs, evidence obtained through use
of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75–77
torture,evidence obtained through . . 58–61
victim personalstatements. . . . . . . . 293–320
voicerecognition evidence . . . . . . . . . .50–57
witness credibility,on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83–101
admissions see confessions
ADR (alternativedispute resolution) . . . . . . . 363
advocates
special . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26–27
victims’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294
alternative disputeresolution (ADR) . . . . . . . 363
anonymity, witness . . . . . . . . . 137–140,150–153
appeals, criminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
archaeology
role inmass graveinvestigations . . .106–108
Australia
abuse ofprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358–359
access towitness statements. . . . . . . 336–341
alternativedispute resolution (ADR) . . . . 363
collateralfact rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250–251
competenceof child togive evidence. . . . 360
continuation of trial after juror discharge
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240–243
defence of honest and reasonable mistake of
fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65–68
foreign evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259–260
judge fallingasleep at trial. . 130–136,145–147
jury directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
legal representation foronly part of trial .78
partisanship ofcounsel . . . . . . . . . . . 153–154
police questioningof youngpersons . . . . 362
restorativejustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
spent convictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
standardof proof of unchargedacts. . . . . . 65
victim impactstatements (VIS). . . . . 302–309
Austria
court-appointedexperts . . . . . . . 167–183,193
authentication ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . . 321–323
bad character evidence see propensity evidence
barristers
partisanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153–154
brain electrical oscillation signature test (BEOS)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253–254
bugging
lawyer–clientconsultations . . . . . . . 245–247
burden of proof
sexual assaulttrials . . . . . . . . . . . 72,269–292
Canada
Charter, evidence obtained in breach of
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352–355
civil justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
closed proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1–27
collateral use of documents disclosed by
prosecution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
credibility,assessment of . . . . . . 72,269–292
criminal standard of proof, explaining
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346–349
electronic documents,exchanging . . . . . .80
informational requirement. . . . . . . . . .61–64
investigativehearsay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350–351
issue estoppel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143–145
jury challengefor cause procedures . . . . 362
mixedstatements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141–142
NovaScotia Small Claims Court . . . . . . . . 363
prior statements. . . . . . . . . . . 77–78, 342–346
reasons for criminal verdict, adequacy of
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72–74
sniffer dogs, evidence obtained through use
of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75–77
standard of proof in civil trials when
criminal conductis alleged. . . . . . . 68–69
third partyrecords, production of . . 225–231,
249–250
‘unsavoury witnesses’, evidence from
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243–245
children
competenceto give evidence. . . . . . . . . . . 360
police questioningof. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
368 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial