Mike Redmayne

Mike RedmayneEmail: m.redmayne@lse.ac.uk
Administrative support: Gosia Brown
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. 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 New Criminal Law Review He is a member of the Royal Statistical Society’s working group on law and statistics.


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.

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.

Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching, (ed. with Paul Roberts), Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2007

Innovations in Evidence and Proof - coverInnovations 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.

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.

Selected articles
and chapters in books

'Hearsay and Human Rights: Al-Khawaja in the Grand Chamber' Modern Law Review (2012) 75 (5) pp.865-878

This note analyses the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, and gives it a cautious welcome. The note suggests how English Courts might respond to the judgment and concludes by assessing justifications for strong confrontation rights and the wider political context of the Grand Chamber's decision.

'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

Responds to the article by Peter Tillers "The structure and the logic of proof in trials", L.P. & R. 2011, 10(1), 1-6, by arguing that he overstates the influence of irrational factors in human reasoning and hence in legal reasoning.

'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. 

'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.

'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.

‘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.

‘Theorizing Jury Reform’ in Duff, Farmer, Marshall and Tadros (ed), The Trial on Trial Volume II (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006)

Trial 0n Trial II - cover

Presents a theoretical analysis of the jury’s role in criminal trials, and links this to reform debates about the jury.