Expert Evidence And International Criminal Justice

The book is a comprehensive narration of the use of expertise in international criminal trials offering reflection on standards concerning the quality and presentation of expert evidence. It analyzes and critiques the rules governing expert evidence in international criminal trials and the strategies employed by counsel and courts relying upon expert evidence and challenges that courts face determining its reliability. In particular, the author considers how the procedural and evidentiary architecture of international criminal courts and tribunals influences the courts’ ability to meaningfully incorporate expert evidence into the rational fact-finding process. The book provides analysis of the unique properties of expert evidence as compared with other forms of evidence and the challenges that these properties present for fact-finding in international criminal trials. It draws conclusions about the extent to which particularized evidentiary rules for expert evidence in international criminal trials is wanting. Based on comparative analyses of relevant national practices, the book proposes procedural improvements to address some of the challenges associated with the use of expertise in international criminal trials.

Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice provides an overview of the procedure and practice concerning the admission and evaluation of evidence before the international criminal tribunals. The book is both descriptive and critical and its emphasis is on day-to-day practice, drawing on the experience of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone Tribunals. This book is an attempt to define and explain the core principles and rules that have developed at those ad hoc Tribunals; the rationale and origin of those rules; and to assess the suitability of those rules in the particular context of the International Criminal Court which is still at its early stages. The ICC differs in structure from the ad hoc Tribunals and approaches the legal issues it has to resolve differently from its predecessors. The ICC is however confronted with many of the same questions. The book examines the differences between the ad hoc Tribunals and the ICC and seeks to offer insights as to how and in which circumstances the principles established over years of practice at the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL may serve as guidance to the ICC practitioners of today and the future. The contributors represent a cross-section of the practicing international criminal bar, drawn from the ranks of the Bench, the Prosecution and the Defence and bringing with them different legal domestic cultures. Their mixed background underlines the recurring theme in this book which is the manner in which a legal culture has gradually taken shape in the international Tribunals, drawing on the various traditions and experiences of its participants.

The book examines the implications of cosmopolitan thought for the functioning of the ICC, and the implications of this for the position of witnesses before the ICC/other tribunals. The cosmopolitan theory becomes a way of critiquing their practice and jurisprudence.

Forensic science evidence and expert witness testimony play an increasingly prominent role in modern criminal proceedings. Science produces powerful evidence of criminal offending, but has also courted controversy and sometimes contributed towards miscarriages of justice. The twenty-six articles and essays reproduced in this volume explore the theoretical foundations of modern scientific proof and critically consider the practical issues to which expert evidence gives rise in contemporary criminal trials. The essays are prefaced by a substantial new introduction which provides an overview and incisive commentary contextualising the key debates. The volume begins by placingforensic science in interdisciplinary focus, with contributions from historical, sociological, Science and Technology Studies (STS), philosophical and jurisprudential perspectives. This is followed by closer examination of the role of forensic science and other expert evidence in criminal proceedings, exposing enduring tensions and addressing recent controversies in the relationship between science and criminal law. A third set of contributions considers the practical challenges of interpreting and communicating forensic science evidence. This perennial battle continues to be fought at the intersection between the logic of scientific inference and the psychology of the fact-finder‘scommon sense reasoning. Finally, the volume‘s fourth group of essays evaluates the (limited) success of existing procedural reforms aimed at improving the reception of expert testimony in criminal adjudication, and considers future prospects for institutional renewal - with a keen eye to comparative law models and experiences, success stories and cautionary tales.

There is an increasing trend towards greater use of and reliance on expertise to provide the necessary evidence in the fight against crime. Certain forms of expert evidence can be important and powerful tools in crime detection and proof. At the same time expert evidence can be so persuasive that the incorrect use of such evidence could lead to miscarriages of justice. At the interface between criminal justice systems and expert evidence lies the imperative to deal appropriately with expert evidence within a human rights framework. This study shows how three different countries, England and Wales, the Netherlands and South Africa, while upholding different legal traditions, often face similar problems in the realm of expert evidence. These include the often contradictory expectations of law and science respectively, the difficulties associated with the assessment and evaluation of the probative value of expert evidence as well as the problems associated with the integration of expert evidence in the criminal justice process. In the quest for answers to these questions, the author compares the 'hybrid' criminal justice system of South Africa with the 'adversarial' system found in England and Wales and the 'inquisitional' system in the Netherlands. Beginning with an examination of the meaning and nature of expert evidence, the investigation traces the role of expert evidence in pre-trial proceedings; procedural aspects of expert evidence during trial; the ability to challenge expert evidence and culminates with the dilemma of gauging the probative value of the evidence. This book contributes to the international debate about expert evidence. It is a worthy source for lawyers and judges in South Africa, the Netherlands and England and Wales.

International Criminal Procedure: Principles and Rules is a comprehensive study of international criminal proceedings written by over forty leading experts in the field. The book offers a systematic overview and detailed comparison of the standards governing the conduct of proceedings in all major international and internationalized criminal courts from the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals to the recently established Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Based on a major research project, the study covers all procedural phases from the initiation of investigation to the appeals process. It pays special attention to the crosscutting themes which shape the contemporary discourse on international criminal justice, including the law of evidence, the defence issues, the procedural role of victims, and negotiated dismissal of international crime cases. The book not only takes stock of the procedural legacy of the UN ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court, but also reflects on the future directions of international criminal procedure. Investigating the tribunals' procedural law and practice through the prism of human rights law, domestic legal traditions, and tribunals' special objectives, the expert group puts forth proposals on how the challenges facing international criminal jurisdictions can best be met. International Criminal Procedure will be an indispensable work for practitioners involved in the adjudication of serious crimes on both national and international level, as well as international law students and academics.

This work deals with the exclusion of illicitly obtained evidence at the International Criminal Court. At the level of domestic law, the so-called exclusionary rule has always been a very prominent topic. The reason for this is that the way a court of law deals with tainted evidence pertains to a key aspect of procedural fairness. It concerns the balancing of the right to a fair trial with the interest of society in effective law enforcement. At the international level, however, the subject has not yet been discussed in detail. The present research intends to fill this gap. It provides an overview of the approaches of a number of domestic legal systems as well as of the approaches of the UN ad hoc tribunals and the European Court of Human Rights and uses the different perspectives to develop a version of the exclusionary rule which fits the International Criminal Court. The book is highly recommended for practitioners and researchers in the field of international criminal law and especially the law of international criminal evidence. Petra Viebig is a Public Prosecutor at the Staatsanwaltschaft Hamburg, Germany.

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.