Subject Index
| Date | 01 October 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1350/1740-5572-17.4.379 |
| Published date | 01 October 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Subject Index |
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 379
SUBJECT INDEX
access to justice
family law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375
intellectual disabilitiesand . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
access tolegal advice . . . . . . . . 123, 142, 147–150
acquaintance rapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299–322
admissibility of evidence
bad characterevidence. . . . . . . . . . . . 250–271
coincidence evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . .202–213
hearsayevidence . . . . . . . . .250–271, 347–366
opinion evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–106
torture, evidence obtained as result of
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284–294
adversarial model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184–185
advice, legal
access to. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123, 142,147–150
African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284–294
anonymity
victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123–124
witness statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173–181
anthropological identification. . . . . . . . 127–156
appeals, criminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .376
audio-visual technology
forensic evidenceby video link. . . . . 221–249
Australia
coincidence evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . .202–213
computerevidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
criminal appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .376
expert evidence in sexual assault cases
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74–113
fitness toplead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
forensic evidenceby video link. . . . . 221–249
intellectual disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
jury directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214, 295–296
sexual offencevictim anonymity. . . 123–124
bad characterevidence . . . . . . . . . . 203,250–271
Bain, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
bodily integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–156
burden of proof
criminal trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323–346
defencedisclosure and . . . . . . . . . . . . 192,197
insurance fraudcases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47–73
Canada
access tofamily justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
impactof social media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
intrusive searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139–142
litigants-in-person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
presumptionof Crown immunity . . . . . . 218
reform ofcourt processes. . . . . . . . . . 218–219
Carloway Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123,215
case management
defencedisclosure regime . . . . . . . . . 189–192
child protection
standardof proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–64,70
child sexual abuse
human identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–156
jury misconceptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88–90
civil standard of proof
insurance fraudcases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47–73
coincidence evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202–213
compensation
miscarriages ofjustice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
competence ofjuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250–271
computer evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
contempt ofcourt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,217–218
correspondence theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32–37
corroboration rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
counterbalancing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 164–168
court warrants
intrusive searches . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,151–153
courts
impactof social media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
reform ofprocesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218–219
covert investigations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
CPS (Crown Prosecution Service)
sufficiency of evidence (Savile inquiry)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215–216
credibility of witness
sexual assaultcases. . . . . . . . 74–113,299–322
criminal appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .376
criminal procedure
defencedisclosure regime . . . . . . . . . 183–201
criminal prosecution
sufficiency of evidence (Savile inquiry)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215–216
criminal verdicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
cross-examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . .357–358, 362
Crown immunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
sufficiency of evidence (Savile inquiry)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215–216
defence disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–201
dignity
intrusive searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127–156
disabilities
intellectual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
mental see fitness to plead
disclosure
defencedisclosure regime . . . . . . . . . 183–201
sanctions for disclosure failure . . . . . . . 219,
272–283
discretion, judicial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367–373
DNA evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216–217
To continue reading
Request your trial