Disordered eating is linked to body shapes and images presented in the mass media. Favored celebrities may represent a particularly strong source of influence. We examined cross‐sectional relationships between women's disordered eating and their perceptions of body‐shape differences with favored celebrities. Women between the ages of 18 and 27 rated personal body shapes alongside those of self‐selected favored celebrities. Multivariate analyses showed self/celebrity body‐shape discrepancies to be linked to EAT‐26 diet, bulimia, and oral control scales independent of personal body‐shape and self/ideal discrepancies. For bulimia subscale scores, this relationship was moderated by a more favorable perception of the celebrity relative to the self. Celebrities might be important in creating an unrealistic social comparison standard that contributes to disordered eating.

Central to the operation of the appellate system, is the ability of individuals who claim that their conviction is in error, to revisit and re-examine evidence gathered during the investigation, as well as that relied upon at their trial. High-profile miscarriages of justice have often only been remedied when there has been defence access to materials post conviction. There is also an imperative for forces to retain evidence in investigations in which no perpetrator has been detected or convicted, to facilitate cold case reviews. In order to give effect then to an appellate system and enable cold case reviews, evidence needs to be retained and properly stored. If materials are not retained and stored correctly, then re-investigations are rendered impossible. Retention is especially critical in respect of physical materials that could be subject to forensic examination. With the progress of science and technology, and the interpretation of results, it is essential that such physical (and now, often digital) materials are retained for future (re)evaluation. From analysis of responses to a Freedom of Information request to all police forces in England and Wales, and qualitative interviews with criminal justice stakeholders, this article examines the retention and storage of materials, and considers the operation and future of the Forensic Archive Ltd. It details a worrying picture of inconsistency, with confusion over what should be retained, and how. It concludes that justice demands that we accept that the proper retention and storage of materials is fundamental to the fair and effective operation of our criminal justice system, and ensures that the Court of Appeal can fulfil its remit in addressing wrongful convictions and forces can pursue justice in cold cases.

Following years of debate, the creation of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in England and Wales signified official recognition that the criminal process may sometimes result in unsafe convictions. Central to the operation of the appellate system, is the ability of individuals who claim that their conviction is in error, to revisit and reexamine evidence gathered during the investigation, as well as that relied upon at their trial. High-profile miscarriages of justice have often only been remedied when there has been defence access to materials post-conviction (which had often not been disclosed pre-trial). While there has (rightly) been critical attention paid to pretrial non-disclosure and the risks this poses to justice, such scrutiny has been lacking postconviction. And yet, it is arguable that the rationale of preventing miscarriages of justice, which underpins the duties of pre-conviction disclosure, subsists post-conviction. This article examines the duties of disclosure post-conviction, arguing that the Supreme Court judgment in R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary & Anor [2014] UKSC 37 has made it more difficult to gain disclosure post-conviction. It details a worrying picture of inconsistency among police and prosecution authorities, with confusion over what should be retained (and how), and whether disclosure post-conviction should be permitted. It concludes that without significant intervention and reform, miscarriages of justice will continue uncorrected and the appellate system will become inconsequential.

Records kept, physical material seized, samples taken and extracts derived during a criminal investigation are retained post conviction in case they could assist a subsequent appeal against conviction. Forensic evidence is the application of scientific analysis to the law. Its presentation in court involves not just the material itself but a suitably learned scientist’s opinion of its significance, and that opinion may be called into question, scientific understanding being in constant flux. Scientific opinion presented in court today may be superseded tomorrow – a powerful argument for the retention of all material which could be subjected to new tests or interpretation in the light of new information. But are exhibits being retained appropriately? A Freedom of Information request to all police forces in England and Wales was undertaken to ascertain their retention practices. The far-from-uniform results are presented and discussed here, along with policy recommendations.

No abstract

Science is knowledge. Continuing study adds to that knowledge, hence science is in perpetual flux. The law courts too are in flux but change in legal opinion does not necessarily keep pace with that of scientific opinion and the appeal court's concern for finality may override the correction of injustice through progress in understanding. From its casework, the charity Inside Justice has identified failures in the instruction of experts pre-trial and inconsistencies in the admission and evaluation of expert evidence post-trial, illustrated here by half a dozen case studies.