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)
Mike
Redmayne
