Subject Index

DOI10.1350/ijep.2008.12.4.308
Publication Date01 November 2008
SubjectSubject Index
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 361
SUBJECT INDEX
abuse ofprocess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246–248
acquittal, evidenceof the factof an . . . . . 53–57,
165–167
admissibility of evidence
authenticity evidence . . . . 275–276,280–283
bad character evidence see bad character
evidence
confession evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231
demeanour evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173–174
disclosure ofprevious convictions . . . . 76–77
DNA evidence
mixed profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64–69
fact ofan acquittal. . . . . . . . . . 53–57,165–167
failure toadminister caution . . . . . . . . . .159
hearsay evidence see hearsay evidence
illegally obtainedevidence . . . . . . . 228–229,
246–248
interceptevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174–175
international criminal trials
documentary evidence . . . . 17–21, 29–30
hearsay evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14–17, 29
prior statements. . . . . . . . . 226–228,248–249
probabilistic evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
surveillance evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–159
uncharged sexualacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 349–351
voiceidentif icationevidence . . . . . . 348–349
voluntariness of confession . 69–72, 156–157
admissions see confessions
analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43–44
antecedents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
antibody profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .353
appeals
Crown’s rightof appeal . . . . . . . . . . . 266–267
setting asideof jury verdict . . . . . . . . 162–165
Attorney-General
role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
audio material
authentication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290–293
Australia
admissibility of evidence
DNA evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64–69
uncharged sexualacts . . . . . . . . . 349–351
client legalprivilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 266
confessions obtainedby deception . . .69–72
confidentiality in guardianship proceedings
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
demeanour evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173–174
difference between comment and direction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254–255
evidence ofthe fact ofan acquittal. . 165–167
expert opinion on drug-related communica-
tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
illegallyobtained evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
journalists’ privilege. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83–84
judgeasleep during trial . . . . . . . . . . . . 79–80
jury selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
Model UniformEvidence Bill. . . . . . . . . . . . 83
prosecutorial duty to put evidence before
court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254–255
right tosilence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–158
setting asideof jury verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
sudden infantdeath (SID). . . . . . . . . . 172–174
testfor relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167–169
authentication ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . . 273–302
authorship, proofof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294–295
autonomy
statisticalevidence and . . . . . . . . . . . 303–324
bad character evidence
definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118–120
directions tojury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77–79
gateway under which evidence admitted
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77–79,123–124, 131
lawreform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
propensity towarduntruthfulness . . . 77–79
‘reprehensible behaviour’ . . . . . . . . . 116–140
Bayes’ Theorem . . . . 182–183, 192–193,203, 207
best evidencerule . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29,293–294
bias
police officers and lawyers as
jurors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160–162, 252–253
Canada
admission ofprior statements . . . . . 248–249
assessment ofwitness credibility. . . 260–261
confession obtained after
inadmissible confession . . . . . . . 351–352
impliedundertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–245
informer privilege. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–76
police interrogationtechniques. . . . 255–256
right tosilence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–157
setting asideof jury verdict . . . . . . . . 162–163
summing-up ofevidence . . . . . . . . . . 257–258
care proceedings
standardof proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .344–347
case management
fact/opinion distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–39, 41–43
cautions
failure toadminister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
chain ofcustody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
civil standard of proof
flexible application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341–344
Clark, Sally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93–94, 204–207
classification of evidence
fact/opinion distinction. . . . . . . . . . . 141–149
client privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 258–260, 266
‘clinical’ legalmethod . . . . . . . . . . . 32–33, 48–51
common enterpriseexception . . . . . . . . 249–252
common interestprivilege. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
‘compelled testimony’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152–154
computer-generated documents
authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292, 296–297
confessions
admissibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
authentication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298–301
failure toadminister caution . . . . . . . . . .159
false. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
obtained after inadmissible
confession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351–352
voluntariness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69–72, 156–157
confidentiality
guardianship proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
see also disclosure
confrontation, right of
hearsayr uleand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338–341
witness anonymityand . . . . . . . . . . .333–338
continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
convictions, previous
disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76–77
use ofstatistical evidenceand . . . . . . . . . . 317
Council for the Registration of Forensic
Practitioners (CRFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–107
covert surveillance
admissibility of intercept evidence .174–175
right tosilence and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–158
CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service)
instruction ofexpert witnesses. . . . . 109–110
CRFP (Council for the Registration of Forensic
Practitioners) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–107
crimes exception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–245
Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS)
instruction ofexpert witnesses. . . . . 109–110
criminal trial process
fight againstorganised crime and. . 218–228
cross-examination
sexual offencetrials . . . . . . . . . . . . 76–77, 265
Crown appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266–267
demeanour evidence. . . . . . . . 173–174, 254–255
derivative useimmunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–245
detention
fight againstorganised crime and . . 212–214
disclosure
impliedundertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–245
Scotland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85–86
testimonialduty and. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152–154
see also legal professional privilege
discovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45–47,51–52, 235
DNA evidence
authentication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289–290
integrity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169–171
lawreform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
likelihood ratio. . . . 64–69,192–195, 200–201
LowCopy Number (LCN) DNA . . . . . . . . . . 171
mixedprof iles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64–69
presentation ofstatistics . . . . . . . . . . 181–207
probabilistic nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
use of accreditedtesting companies 263–265
withholding of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82
see also antibody profiling
documentary evidence
authentication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293–295
impliedundertaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234–245
international criminaltrials . . . 17–21,29–30
due process rights
fight againstorganised crime and. . 208–233
entrapment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246–248
enumerative induction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
European Union
judicial cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
legal professionalprivilege . . . . . . . . . . 72–74
exclusionary rules of evidence
in internationalcriminal law . . . . . . . . . 1–31
exhibits
release todefence fortesting . . . . . . . . . . . 266
expert witnesses
court listsystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107–108
definition of‘expert’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141–142
distinction betweenjury and. . . . . . . . . . . 173
drug-related communications . . . . . . . . . . 80
duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95–98
fact/opinion distinction. . . . . . . . . . . 141–149
negligence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93–115
police interrogationtechniques. . . . 255–256
restriction onnumbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
voiceidentif ication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348–349
eyewitness evidence
generalisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
lawreform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
mistakenidentif ication. . . . . . . . . . . 353–354
fact-finding
judicial proof and scientific explanation
compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32–52
use ofstatistical evidenceand . . . . . . 308–310
fair trial
disclosure of previous convictions and
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76–77
manipulation of trial by defendant
and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261–263
privilege against self-incrimination and
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58–63,154
right ofconfrontation and . . . . . . . .333–338
right to silence and
covert listeningdevices . . . . . . . . 157–158
voluntariness ofconfession . . . . 156–157
Fallon, Kieren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82–83
false confessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
films
authentication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290–293
362 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
SUBJECT INDEX

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT