Fire investigation is arguably one of the most difficult areas of investigation. The fire scene and available evidence has often been burnt, melted, smoke-stained, water-damaged and trampled on, but the fire investigator still has to make important distinctions between whether a fire was accidental or deliberate (arson). Modern fire investigations often rely on portable electronic detectors to identify ignitable liquid residue (ILR), or accelerant detection canines (ADCs), trained on a number of target substances. An analysis of cases from England and Wales, the United States of America (USA) and Canada demonstrates that sophisticated admissibility frameworks have not been effective in rejecting opinion testimony given by investigators and dog handlers that unconfirmed dog alerts where laboratory tests were negative provided proof of arson. This is problematic and controversial, and the authors conclude that such testimony is not compatible with modern forensic or scientific standards and should not be admitted into courts.
Feature-comparison evidence has been introduced in court without sufficient scientific validation and has been at the heart of numerous miscarriages of justice. Juror assessment of such evidence and the efficacy of evidentiary instructions were examined through a mock jury experiment with case reports featuring either central or peripheral feature-comparison evidence. In a case-control design (N = 174), the test group was exposed to an evidentiary instruction about the ear print evidence presented in the first case report (adapted from R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903) whereas the control group did not receive such an instruction. The provision of this instruction resulted in a significant decrease in verdict severity with a large effect size. For the second case report (based on R v George (Barry) [2007] EWCA Crim 2722), all subjects were asked to return verdicts based on circumstantial evidence, gunpowder residue evidence, and an evidentiary instruction about that gunpowder residue evidence. Verdict severity increased significantly after the provision of gunpowder residue evidence, followed by a subsequent reduction in verdict severity after the introduction of an evidentiary instruction. Furthermore, there was a significant difference in verdict severity between the test and control group, suggesting that the test group exhibited a scepticism effect brought about by the initial evidentiary instruction about ear print evidence. This study demonstrates that although mock jurors consider feature-comparison evidence a convincing indicator of guilt, the provision of an evidentiary instruction has the potential to educate jurors about the limitations of such evidence.
Conviction integrity units (CIUs) operate out of a small number of prosecutors' offices in the USA, and these have since 2007 contributed to several exonerations. In England and Wales, there are obstacles in place that prevent post-conviction disclosure for virtually anyone other than the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body that in effect screens cases for the Court of Appeal. The article examines whether CIUs modelled on those in the USA could be the way forward to help those who have been wrongfully convicted. It is concluded that such units could be useful in England and Wales, and may benefit from being run by a publically elected post similar to the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) implemented in 2012, as this would ensure greater democratic governance and oversight. It is further concluded that improved third party access to post-conviction disclosure is urgently needed.
This special issue of the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice is dedicated to the timely topic of disclosure failures in England and Wales. Failures around pre-trial disclosure have gained much media attention in the last few years, with cases such as that of Liam Allan, whose rape trial collapsed after the late disclosure of electronic messages, attracting much attention. However, old and new controversial issues that affect post-conviction disclosure are perhaps lesser known to the wider audience. This special issue considers both pre-trial and post-conviction disclosure, and it aims to bring these issues to a larger multidisciplinary audience as these problems do affect several different criminal justice agencies. A failure to disclose relevant material may result in a wrongful conviction, and once that conviction has happened, it is almost impossible to get access to any documents and materials postconviction. Whilst the focus of this special issue is on England and Wales, disclosure failures are not unique to this jurisdiction, and therefore, the problems and potential solutions presented herein are of wider interest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.