Search results
Conceptual arguments claim that a particular approach to legal interpretation follows from the concept of interpretation, the concept of law, the concept of authority, or some other relevant concept (e.g., Neale 2012 [Other Internet Resources]; see Berman 2009, 37–68).
- Foreword
- Summary, introduction and scope
- 1. What is statistical science?
- 1.2 Communication of the probative value when statistical science is used
- 2. Probability and the principles of evaluating scientific evidence
- 2.2 Personal probabilities
- 2.3 Datasets containing relevant past observations
- 2.4 Probative value expressed as a likelihood ratio
- 3.1 Prosecutor’s fallacy
- 3.2 Defence attorney’s fallacy
- 3.5 Interpretation of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘balance of probabilities’
- 4. The role of expert witnesses and what should be expected from them
- 5. Conclusions and the future
- Probability in a legal context
- Expert explanations, or expressions of possibility
- The basis for assigning probabilities
- A DNA case
- CASE STUDY 2
- firearm discharge residue case
- CASE STUDY 3
- Under the first proposition
- Under the alternative proposition
- How do we know if the expert’s probability assignments are reliable?
- How may experts use probability to assist fact-finders in their decision-making?
- What are the limitations of using probability?
- Appendix 2: Evaluation of trace evidence
- Assumptions and data
- Fibres
- Example 1: competing sources of fibres
- Example 2: missing fibre types
- Glass
- Firearm discharge residue (FDR)
- Example
- Drugs on banknotes
- Appendix 3: Evaluation of impression evidence
- What is ‛impression evidence’?
- What is the purpose of the forensic examination?
- How is the comparison work carried out?
- What conclusions do experts reach following a comparison?
- How do experts decide on an identification or an exclusion?
- Use of a likelihood ratio approach in practice in the UK
- Appendix 4: Statistical significance
- Epidemiology, basic principles and study types
- Case reports or series
- Retrospective case-control studies
- Retrospective and prospective cohort studies
- Randomised controlled trials
- Systematic review
- Plausibility
- Analogy
- Editorial board
- Writing group
- Primer steering group
- Acknowledgements
The judicial primers project is a unique collaboration between members of the judiciary, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The primers have been created under the direction of a Steering Group initially chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley who was succeeded by Lady Justice Rafferty DBE, and are designed to assist the judiciary wh...
The aim of this primer is to provide assistance to the judiciary and legal professionals in understanding the principles of evaluating evidence (that has a statistical basis) presented in the courts. The primer is presented in two parts. The first part provides a general introduction to the use of statistical and probabilistic tools within legal pr...
Reasoning about data is increasingly recognised as an essential skill for modern life. Fact-finding and the assessment of expert evidence in court cases often requires an understanding of probability, statistics and numbers. Various different statistical and probabilistic tools can be used to address different questions relating to the context of i...
When conclusions based on statistical science are drawn from data, it is crucial that the data and the reasoning supporting those conclusions are transparent. Under the term ‘intelligent transparency’ Baroness Onora O’Neill5 has argued that the data and reasoning must be: accessible: ie easily available and not, for example, hidden behind a prop...
Specifically, in a legal context, probability can help fact-finders assess the impact of evidence on the truth or otherwise of a particular proposition. It has a well-documented history in academic legal literature6. Each item of evidence can be used to support one or more proposition(s). Evidence may, on occasion, point directly to incriminating ...
We make personal assignments of probability every day: What is the probability that I will miss the bus this morning if I have one more cup of coffee? What is the probability that I will be caught if I break into this property? In such circumstances, the probabilities that we assign, albeit not mathematically evaluated or even verbalised in this w...
Evaluation of evidence using likelihood ratios (LRs) often involves the use of datasets and statistical assumptions. It is important that these datasets, assumptions and calculations are clearly stated and appropriate for the problem. Validation tests should be carried out to gauge the statistical assumptions and to ensure that the LR values presen...
Technically, the LR is the probability of the evidence assuming that proposition A is true divided by the probability of the evidence assuming tha proposition B is true: LR = probability of the evidence, if A is true probability of the evidence, if B is true LRs are typically attached to DNA evidence in which a ‘match’ of some degree is found betwe...
The prosecutor's fallacy occurs when the probability of the evidence (matching DNA profile, glass fragment of the same refractive index as the fragment recovered from the target window, etc) given innocence (the random match probability) is incorrectly interpreted as the probability of innocence given the evidence. This is formally known as ‘transp...
The defence attorney’s fallacy occurs when it is reported how many people with the matching characteristics are likely to be found in a defined population (eg the population of the UK). This assumes that the perpetrator is part of some arbitrarily large population and that there is no other information available, so that everyone is equally likel...
These might appear to be expressions of probability for either criminal guilt or on behalf of one of the sides in a civil case, respectively. In fact, they relate to the strength of the evidence required by the legal system, the prior odds provided for, or against, a particular explanation of events and the relative merits and losses associated wit...
The guidelines for expert witnesses in England and Wales13 provide a useful reminder that expert witnesses have a duty to give independent, impartial and unbiased evidence, and not to stray outside their area of expertise. Crucially, any reference to data that have been collected by others has to be justified, and their limitations communicated cle...
As forensic tests become more sensitive, and the amount and complexity of scientific evidence increases, there will be a need for more sophisticated models and statistics to obtain meaningful inferences and interpretation of the evidence given the specific circumstances of a case. This includes the generation of ground truth datasets (where the pro...
With the exception of evidence that is eliminative, scientific findings rarely provide evidence that is conclusive for a particular questioned event. The probative value of scientific findings needs to be assessed and taken into account by the fact-finders when considering whether a contested event in the past, for example whether the defendant com...
There is a form of expert opinion that does not involve assessment of probability and is classified16 as an explanation (possibility). Phrases that an expert will use to express an explanation include ‛consistent with’, ‛could have’ and ‛cannot exclude’. For example, the expert may explain that “the finding of a fibre on the clothing of a suspect w...
All probability assignments can be viewed as being conditioned on some form of pre-existing information. That information could include relevant details of the circumstances of the case in question, actuarial data, technical data, expert knowledge, results of competency testing, etc. It is important for all those people who use and rely on probabi...
The fact-finder is presented with expert evidence of matching DNA profiles extracted from a sample from a defendant and from a bloodstain left at the scene of a crime. question for the fact-finder would be: Is the DNA extracted and analysed from the bloodstain that of the defendant? And the ultimate question would be: Is the defendant guilty of an ...
The first probability assignment, ie the probability of obtaining the DNA evidence if the DNA from the scene had come from the defendant, would be based on the expert’s knowledge of the reliability of the process of DNA profiling in producing the true profile from a stain. The expert should base their assessment on whatever relevant data there may...
person has been accused of discharging a firearm during the commission of a robbery. The firearm was not recovered but spent cartridge cases were found at the scene. Swabs were taken from the hands of the defendant about five hours after the incident. Subsequent chemical analysis of the swabs revealed the presence of a small amount of firearm disch...
The task to be addressed is that the propositions are contested – we do not know which of the competing propositions is true. Did the defendant or someone else fire the gun? The principles of inductive logic (where the conclusion may be probable based upon the evidence presented) dictate that, to assess the probability that an uncertain proposition...
The defendant fired the gun (at the relevant time): the expert would rely on whatever is known generally about transfer and persistence of FDR and apply that knowledge to assign a probability for obtaining the evidence under this proposition. The expert may consider undertaking experiments to replicate as far as possible the conditions of the i...
The defendant did not fire the gun (at a relevant time, it was some other person): the expert would use whatever survey or other data there may be to help them consider the probability of obtaining the evidence under this proposition, and given the task-relevant information. Again, this will be the expert’s considered view on that probability. Gene...
The answer to that lies, first, in the expert being able to explain in a transparent way the basis of their assignment and, second, in the expert revealing the results of any relevant calibration of their past opinions through, for example, competency testing. The expert should be able to defend their opinion upon challenge. Through transparency a...
It is important for all participants in the justice process to understand and be clear about several key issues and questions in the use of probability. These are: The essential distinction between probabilities for evidence (usually the expert’s observations and analytical results) and probabilities for propositions (ie the facts in issue). Whet...
Perhaps the main limitation is the lack of a common understanding among experts, lawyers, judges and lay people of the notion of probability and the extent to which it can be applied. Until there is a shared understanding and a common language about probability, and an agreement on how best to express probability, then misunderstandings and confu...
Trace evidence refers to any material that is transferred between persons or objects during contact and is commonly recovered in connection with an alleged crime. The term is often used to refer to the collection of materials frequently encountered by forensic scientists such as glass, paint, fibres, firearm discharge residue and DNA. In forensic c...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
This project would also not have been possible without contributions and support from a range of individuals. In particular we wish to thank: The Rt Hon the Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales The Rt Hon Lord Carloway, Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Preside...
- 741KB
- 72
The Meaning of Legal “Meaning” and Its Implications for Theories of Legal Interpretation, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1235, 1238–39 (2015) [hereinafter Fallon, Meaning of Legal Meaning] (addressing interpretive choice in terms of a choice of legal meaning); Mark Greenberg, Legal Interpretation and Natural Law, 89 Fordham L. Rev. 109, 109–10 ...
Ruth Sullivan*. This article explores the discrepancy between the way the Supreme Court of Canada does statutory interpretation and the way it explains what it does. The Court currently relies on two theories of interpretation: textualism (often referred to as the plain meaning rule), and intentionalism (embodied in Dreidger's modern principle).
The categories of interpretative argument are, first, those that appeal to the linguistic context itself as a source of reasons for favouring one interpretation or another (‘linguistic’ arguments); secondly, those that look at the legal system as the special context of the authoritative text to see how best to make sense of it in that context (‘systemic’ arguments); thirdly, those that ...
Nov 5, 2023 · Ratio Juris is a philosophy of law and jurisprudence journal, providing a forum for the communication of philosophical ideas about law and legal questions. Abstract When legal theorists ask questions about legal interpretation—such as what it fundamentally is, what it aims at, or how it should work—they often do so in ways closely tethered to existing...
People also ask
What is the law of interpretation?
How is statistical science used in legal proceedings?
What questions do legal theorists ask about legal interpretation?
Is statutory interpretation a methodological problem?
What reframes the theory of statutory and constitutional interpretation?
Does textualism govern outcomes in statutory interpretation cases?
Feb 10, 2017 · Like other parts of the law, what we call “the law of interpretation” has a claim to guide the actions of judges, officials, and private interpreters — even if it isn’t ideal. We argue that legal interpretive rules are conceptually possible, normatively sensible, and actually part of our legal system. This Article thus reframes the ...
