Mike
Redmayne
Email: m.redmayne@lse.ac.uk
Administrative support: Lucy Wright
Room: New Academic Building 6.13
Tel.
020-7955-7245
Mike Redmayne is a Professor of Law. Before coming to the LSE in 1999 he taught
at the universities of Manchester and Brunel, and during 2005 he held a
Fellowship in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National
University. His principal research interests are in evidence and criminal
procedure.
see also
Mike Redmayne's
LSE
Experts page
Research interests
Mike’s principal research interests are in
Evidence and Criminal Procedure. In Evidence his work draws on a variety
of disciplines, including probability theory, psychology and
criminology. He has written extensively about expert evidence and
character evidence, and also works on the theoretical foundations of
evidence law. In Criminal Procedure he has written on disclosure, the
privilege against self-incrimination, and the jury. With Andrew
Ashworth, he is co-author of a leading text on the criminal process.
External activities
-
Mike is on the editorial Committee of the
Modern Law Review, and currently serves as joint articles editor. He was a
founding editor of Law, Probability and Risk, and is on the editorial
boards of The International Journal of Evidence and Proof and
International Commentary on Evidence. He is a member of the Royal Statistical Society’s
working group on law and statistics.
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
The Criminal Process (with Andrew Ashworth), 3rd edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
The
Criminal Process provides an accessible and thought-provoking
overview of key issues in criminal processes and procedures,
drawing on arguments from the law, research, policy and
principle. Following introductory chapters outlining the context
of recent changes to the criminal justice process, the
theoretical framework and the various professional roles
involved, the authors examine nine key issues in the criminal
process, integrating and commenting upon the latest developments
in law and practice. The chapters offer up-to-date coverage of
developing areas such as the use of DNA samples and eyewitness
identification evidence, as well as discussion of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003.
click here
for publisher's site
'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' Legal
Theory' 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)
