FSCI 7000 Introduction to English Law
Intended Learning Outcomes
Upon concluding this module, students are expected to achieve the following:
Comprehensive understanding of the procedural framework of adversarial jury trials.
Appreciation of the relevance, admissibility, and fact-finding associated with forensic science and law.
Deeper insight into expert evidence and their functional roles as forensic scientists.
The Adversarial System Overview
Responsibilities of Forensic Scientists in Court:
Forensic scientists or expert witnesses should refrain from engaging in disputes with barristers during court proceedings.
It is crucial to maintain composure and clarity when faced with eloquently arguing barristers, as experts risk being overshadowed.
General Process in Adversarial Trials:
The adversarial system is predominant in both civil and criminal cases, characterized by proponents arguing their case:
Arguments presented by barristers for both sides.
Self-advocacy is acceptable, particularly in criminal cases.
In criminal proceedings, prosecution represents the Crown, with charge statements beginning with R. v. XXXX, where R stands for Regina (Queen) or Rex (King).
Criminal Cases
Structure of Criminal Proceedings:
Beginning in the Magistrates' Court, with approximately 95% of cases concluding there.
Summary Trials handle minor legal infractions without jury involvement.
If a case requires a punishment exceeding magistrates' jurisdiction, it escalates to the Crown Court.
Process Description:
Trials begin with the prosecution outlining the charges, applicable law, and key facts.
Witness examination must follow a logical flow:
Examination-in-chief from prosecution, followed by cross-examination by the defense.
Possible re-examination by prosecution post-defense questioning.
Verdict announcement occurs after defense witnesses share evidence. Sentences are issued per the magistrates' judgment.
Appeals, based on legal grounds, can proceed in the Crown Court, where cases are termed as indictments if out of magistrate's sentencing scope.
Crown Court Proceedings
Proceedings are similar to Magistrates' Court but include:
The arraignment of defendants where charges are read aloud.
If the defendant pleads guilty, the trial is concluded, awaiting sentencing.
If pleading not guilty:
The case proceeds with a jury empanelment.
Preliminary legal matters addressed outside the jury's presence.
The prosecution presents its case, detailing evidence essential for their argument.
Judges rule on legal matters, while juries deliberate on factual matters of the case.
Witness Interaction Structure
Logical flow of witness testimonies is emphasized:
Starting with prosecution calling witnesses, followed by cross-examination by the defense.
Structured trial summary includes:
Opening speech by the prosecution.
Examination-in-chief, addressing witness details.
Cross-examination by defense.
Order of Proceedings Summary
Examination-in-chief (prosecution)
Cross-examination (defense)
Re-examination (prosecution)
Defense's opportunity to claim 'no case to answer':
If agreed, defendant is acquitted.
If not:
Defense opening speech
Defense calls witnesses:
Examination-in-chief (defense).
Cross-examination (prosecution).
Re-examination (defense).
Defense closing speech.
Possible prosecution closing speech.
Expert Evidence Discussion
Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) includes understanding when experts need to appear in court:
If both parties agree on results, the expert may not need to attend.
Importance of expert reports remains despite the absence of physical presence in court.
If disagreements arise, an independent report may be requisitioned.
Experts are cautioned to follow counsel's advice while maintaining the integrity of their own reports.
The court's objective focuses on truth over any biased representation.
If there’s a ruling of no case to answer, juries are directed to acquit the accused.
Key Legal Cases and Their Implications
R v Turner (1975)
Establishes criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence in English courts:
Expert opinions should provide scientific insights potentially outside the judge's or jury's knowledge.
However, impressive qualifications of an expert don’t automatically enhance the value of their opinions on matters of human nature compared to jury insights.
Caution: Experts should be aware that they might project an illusion of authority that outstrips their actual expertise.
R v Stagg (1992)
Notable case demonstrating the rejection of psychological and psychiatric evidence:
The court of appeal identified a lack of scrutiny guidelines for such evidence.
Expert's role was defined, indicating that psychiatric opinions on reactions to life stressors were not well-grounded in practical relevance.
Bias and Miscarriages of Justice
In the investigation of a cold case related to Rachel's murder, the Forensic Alliance played a pivotal role in uncovering biases illustrated, particularly Confirmation Bias related to prior conclusions affecting subsequent interpretations.
Reflection Questions and Expert Evidence Terminology
Type of evidence concerned with conclusions, inferences, and interpretations: Expert Evidence.
Witnesses providing firsthand accounts of observations are termed Witness of Fact.
Experts should formally Decline to answer questions beyond their area of expertise.
Post-Lecture Reading Assignments
Required exploration of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984):
Identify distinctions between intimate and non-intimate samples.
Discuss relevance of parts 64 and 64Z(A) and their specific focus areas.
Understand codes of practice relating to DNA evidence.
Explore authorization processes for obtaining intimate samples.
Comprehend content from section 81 and implications of section 78 regarding the inadmissibility of unfair evidence.
Investigate codification of intimate searches and necessary authorizations.