PhilArchive
open access
Miscarriage of jstice
Expert2 evidence is admissible only if it provides the court with scientific information likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury. In other words, expert evidence will be restricted to that which in the opinion of the court is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings.3 This particular case must be urgently considered by the Criminal Appeals Review Commission as it becomes apparent that the court of appeal decision is flawed, not surprising when one considers the mountain of miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom criminal justice system.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Expertise-Objections to the Argument from Inductive Risk#204391
- MuPlon: Multi-Path Causal Optimization for Claim Verification through Controlling Confounding#1082979
- A Practitioner's Guide to the Management and Use of Expert Witnesses in Washington Civil Litigation#1019825
- Three Arguments Against the Expertise Defense#754241
- Challenging the Majority Rule in Matters of Truth#746981
Record · ID 762422
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive