Character in the Criminal Trial (Oxford Monographs on
Criminal Law and Justice) Oxford University Press, 2015
If a defendant is on trial for a crime such as burglary, to what extent should the fact that he has a previous conviction for burglary feature in his trial? Should the prosecution be allowed to tell the jury about the previous conviction as evidence that the defendant is more likely to have committed burglary? Should the judge give the defendant a longer sentence because he has a previous conviction? These are the fundamental questions examined in
Character in the Criminal Trial.
Including an in-depth analysis of the character evidence provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, this book assesses the arguments for and against using character evidence to prove a defendant's guilt. It explores the sentencing provisions in the same Act, as well as the general use of criminal record and other character evidence to aggravate and mitigate sentence.
Issues examined in the course of the book include: psychological and philosophical debates about the stability of character; criminological research on recidivism and the nature of criminal careers; ethical debates about the use of prior behaviour to prove current or future offending; the process of reasoning underlying the use of bad character evidence; whether bad character evidence is prejudicial; and the use of risk assessment instruments to classify offenders as dangerous. By combining insights from law, psychology, criminology, and philosophy, Redmayne reassesses the use of character in the criminal trial and reflects on the significance of the law's increasing emphasis on character.
click here for publisher's site
The Criminal Process (with Andrew Ashworth), 4th edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
The
fourth edition of The Criminal Process continues in the
tradition of previous editions in providing an insightful and
stimulating analysis of the key issues in criminal processes and
procedures. Two of the leading figures in the field, Andrew
Ashworth and Mike Redmayne, draw on arguments from the law,
research, policy, and principle, to present an authoritative
overview of this area of study. This edition includes a new
chapter on the interface between criminal and civil (preventive)
justice, and the addition of questions for discussion and
suggested readings at the end of each chapter to facilitate
debate and further research.
click here for publisher's site
Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research
and Teaching, (ed. with Paul Roberts), Oxford, Hart Publishing,
2007
Innovations
in Evidence and Proof brings together fifteen leading scholars and experienced
law teachers based in Australia, Canada, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South
Africa, the USA and England and Wales to explore and debate the latest
developments in Evidence and Proof scholarship. The essays comprising this
volume range expansively over questions of disciplinary taxonomy, pedagogical
method and computer-assisted learning, doctrinal analysis, fact-finding,
techniques of adjudication, the ethics of cross-examination, the implications of
behavioural science research for legal procedure, human rights, comparative law
and international criminal trials. Communicating the breadth, dynamism and
intensity of contemporary theoretical innovation in their diversity of
subject-matter and approach, the authors nonetheless remain united by a common
purpose: to indicate how the best interdisciplinary theorising and research
might be integrated directly into degree-level Evidence teaching.
click here for publisher's site
Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford Monographs
on Criminal Law and Justice) Oxford University Press, 2001
As
an increasing range of expert evidence becomes available to it, the criminal
justice system must answer a series of challenging questions: should experts
be permitted to give evidence on the credibility of witnesses? How should
statistical evidence be presented to juries? What relevance does syndrome
evidence have to questions of criminal responsibility? In `Expert Evidence
and Criminal Justice', Mike Redmayne explores these issues. His exposition
utilizes work in a number of disciplines, and draws comparisons with the law
and procedure in several different jurisdictions. While developing a general
overview of the use of scientific evidence in the criminal process, Redmayne
makes use of detailed examinations of particular issues, such as battered
women syndrome, fingerprinting, and eyewitness expertise. Through an
analysis of expert evidence, he also invites reflection on a series of wider
issues, among them the function of exclusionary rules and the nature of case
construction.
click here for publisher's site
'Hearsay and Human Rights: Al-Khawaja in
the Grand Chamber' Modern Law Review (2012) 75 (5)
pp.865-878
'Exploring Entrapment' in Lucia Zedner and Julian V. Roberts
(eds.) Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (OUP
2012)
'Confronting Confrontation' in Paul Roberts and Jill Hunter
(eds.) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights (Hart : 2012)
'Rationality and irrationality in evidence and proof: a
comment on "The structure and logic of proof in trials" by Professor Tillers'
2011 Law, Probability and Risk 10(1), 9-11
'Forensic science evidence in question.' (Mike Redmayne. Paul
Roberts. Colin Aitken. Graham Jackson) 2011 Criminal Law Review
5,347-356
Analyses the Court of Appeal judgment in R. v T in which the
court in remarking on shoeprint comparison evidence considered how expert
witnesses, in particular forensic scientists, should present their evidence in
court and the types and quality of the data they can draw on when formulating
their conclusions. Identifies what the court had to say about the methodology
employed by the expert witness, in particular the use of likelihood ratios.
Emphasises positive features of the judgment, rejecting interpretations which
threaten to diminish the integrity and distort the probative value of scientific
evidence.
click here for access via Westlaw [ON CAMPUS]
click here for access via Westlaw [OFF CAMPUS]
'Recognising propensity' Crim. L.R.
2011 (3) 177-198
Examines the meaning of a defendant's
"propensity" to commit crime under the bad character
provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and whether
misunderstandings over the term may render convictions
unsafe. Reviews the courts' approach to propensity and
admissibility of previous misconduct, and the complexities
arising from a "pooling" approach to cases involving
multiple counts and from cross-admissibility. Reflects on
the difficulties of distinguishing between propensity and
coincidence cases, and failures to understand the role of
propensity in connecting bad character to guilt.
click here for access via Westlaw [ON CAMPUS]
click here for access via Westlaw [OFF CAMPUS]
'Theorizing the Criminal Trial' (2009) 12
New Criminal Law Review 287-313
'English Warnings' (in Symposium: The Future of
Self-incrimination: Fifth Amendment, Confessions, & Guilty Pleas) 2008
Cardozo Law Review 30 (3) 1047-1088
'The Ethics of Character Evidence' (2008) 61 Current Legal
Problems 371-99
'Exploring the Proof Paradoxes' 2008 14 Legal Theory
281
This article explores a long-running debate in evidence theory
about the significance of certain puzzling cases where there is reluctance to
ascribe liability despite a high probability of liability. It focuses on certain
analyses of these puzzles, distinguishing between inferential, moral, and
knowledge-based analyses. The article emphasizes the richness and complexity of
the puzzle cases and suggests why they are difficult to resolve.
click here for full text via CUP [ON CAMPUS]
click here for full text via CUP [OFF CAMPUS]
‘Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination’ 2007 27
OJLS 209
While recognized in a large number of
jurisdictions, the privilege against self-incrimination
proves hard to justify. This article attempts to develop
a rationale for the privilege which avoids the usual
pitfalls. It argues that the most compelling rationale
for the privilege is that it serves as a distancing
mechanism, allowing defendants to disassociate
themselves from prosecutions. The resulting account has
implications for the scope of the privilege. First, it
suggests that no distinction should be drawn between
requirements to speak and requirements to provide the
authorities with documents, blood samples and the like.
Secondly, it is argued that recognition of a privilege
against self-incrimination implies that we should
recognize a privilege against other incrimination which
has similar force. Attention is also paid to exceptions
to the privilege.
click here for full text via OUP [ON CAMPUS]
click here for full text via OUP [OFF CAMPUS]
‘Theorizing Jury Reform’ in Duff, Farmer, Marshall
and Tadros (ed), The Trial on Trial Volume II
(Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006)
Email: m.redmayne@lse.ac.uk