JournalTOCs

International Journal of Evidence and Proof
Number of Followers: 12

Full-text available via subscription

Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 1365-7127 - ISSN (Online) 1740-5572
Published by Sage Publications

[1093 journals]

The Moorov doctrine and coercive control: Proving a ‘course of
behaviour’ under s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
- Authors: Ilona Cairns
  Pages: 396 - 417
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Volume 24, Issue 4, Page 396-417, October 2020.
  In 2019, a distinct offence of ‘abusive behaviour towards partner or ex-partner’ (‘domestic abuse’) came into force in Scotland via s. 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. This new offence has been celebrated for its meaningful incorporation of the concept of coercive control (Evan Stark has described the 2018 Act as ‘gold standard’ legislation) and may serve as a model for other jurisdictions looking to criminalise coercive and controlling behaviours. The practical effectiveness of the offence in Scotland, however, will hinge on how Scotland’s corroboration rule, and the accompanying Moorov doctrine (‘Moorov’), are applied in this context. Drawing both on recent doctrinal developments and on a conceptual understanding of the dynamics of coercive control, this article offers the first in-depth analysis of how Moorov is likely to apply in s. 1 cases. It identifies developments that are likely to assist the prosecution, as well as potential barriers to the doctrine’s successful application, and argues that in certain cases judges and jurors will have difficulty seeing the ‘course of conduct’ required by Moorov without proper understanding of the policy underpinning the Act and the gendered nature of domestic abuse. The article considers how this understanding may be brought about, both within the confines of the current law and in terms of possible reform.
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-10-06T07:55:30Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720959857
  Issue No: Vol. 24, No. 4 (2020)
A comparison between the standard of proof applicable in arbitration and
formal adjudication
- Authors: Jesus Ezurmendia, Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Ahead of Print.
  This article aims to describe the application of the standard of proof in arbitration and to question whether the standard to be applied should be the same as or lower than in ordinary civil justice as a result of the contractual origin of the dispute. The determination of the applicable standard takes into consideration the equality of arms and other guarantees of due process, along with the fact of the absence of the standard rule in the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitrator shall establish these aspects at the beginning of the process, considering also the rules of burden of proof.
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-08-04T09:24:06Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720943333
Rebooting the new evidence scholarship
- Authors: John R Welch
  First page: 351
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Ahead of Print.
  The new evidence scholarship addresses three distinct approaches: legal probabilism, Bayesian decision theory and relative plausibility theory. Each has major insights to offer, but none seems satisfactory as it stands. This paper proposes that relative plausibility theory be modified in two substantial ways. The first is by defining its key concept of plausibility, hitherto treated as primitive, by generalising the standard axioms of probability. The second is by complementing the descriptive component of the theory with a normative decision theory adapted to legal process. Because this version of decision theory is based on plausibilities rather than probabilities, it generates plausibilistic expectations as outputs. Because these outputs are comparable, they function as relative plausibilities. Hence the resulting framework is an extension of relative plausibility theory, but it retains deep ties to legal probabilism, through the proposed definition of plausibility, and to Bayesian decision theory, through the normative use of decision theory.
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-08-12T11:03:46Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720943329
Registered intermediaries’ assessment of children’s communication: An
exploration of aims and processes
- Authors: Kimberly Collins, Sarah Krahenbuhl
  First page: 374
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Ahead of Print.
  Following the implementation of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for England and Wales, Registered Intermediaries have been available to assist child witness communication in legal proceedings since 2004. Registered Intermediaries are given training to fulfil this role. However, their assessments and practices are conducted independently. This study examined Registered Intermediaries’ perceptions and experiences of this independent practice, and the impact this had on the quality of the legal process in terms of evidential quality, child witness experiences and engagement. Seventeen experienced and currently active Registered Intermediaries with a range of communication specialisms took part in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed thematically. Six main themes emerged from the data: assessment constraints and requirements, essential elements of the assessment process, why the assessment process is effective, ensuring recommendations are followed through, pressures and barriers, and practice development. The Registered Intermediaries stressed the need for further training for themselves as well as for legal professionals, and emphasised the benefits of working as a team throughout the assessment and legal process.
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-08-25T01:30:01Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720952335
Hearsay evidence in Uganda: Understanding its meaning, admissibility and
probative value
- Authors: Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
  First page: 418
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Ahead of Print.
  In Uganda legislation requires witnesses to adduce direct evidence in court. However, this may not be possible in all cases and the law provides for circumstances in which hearsay may be admissible. The Evidence Act is the main piece of legislation which governs the issue evidence. In this article, the author relied on 539 cases in which the Ugandan High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have dealt with hearsay evidence to establish the principles which these courts have developed on this issue. This case law shows, inter alia, that there are three major issues that Ugandan courts are still grappling with when it comes to hearsay evidence: the definition of hearsay; the admissibility of hearsay (exceptions to the hearsay rule) and the probative value of hearsay evidence. The author suggests ways in which courts can handle these issues.
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-09-22T12:00:51Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720960241
Corrigendum to Tapes, transcripts and trials: The routine contamination of
police interview evidence
- First page: 440
  Abstract: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Ahead of Print.
  
  Citation: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  PubDate: 2020-07-29T11:21:12Z
  DOI: 10.1177/1365712720948970