Contents

[close]

JCL 75 (2011) 482

Hearsay, Confessions and Mobile Telephones
Michael Hirst

This article examines the concepts of hearsay and relevance as they apply to evidence derived from messages and call logs, etc. found on mobile telephones. In some cases such evidence may also raise issues as to the relationship between the statutory rules governing hearsay and those specifically governing confessions by defendants, and in particular their possible use against other defendants who may be incriminated by them. The Court of Appeal has examined these issues on a number of occasions, notably in the case of R v Twist (2011), but I will argue here that a number of mistakes have been made and some difficulties have been misunderstood or overlooked.

[close]

[close]

JCL 75 (2011) 503

Away from the Numbers: Opinion in the Court of Appeal
Adam Wilson

The Court of Appeal has recently addressed opinion evidence in numerous cases. Recurring themes have been addressed consistently with the exception of R v T (2010). It is suggested that the rationale in T is not as persuasive as that adopted in other cases. This article advocates that, where appropriate, a Bayesian approach should be adopted. In favouring a Bayesian approach it is suggested that ambiguous phrases such as 'scientific method' may not serve courts effectively and judges have been correct, in the majority of cases, to approach opinion evidence in a pragmatic, case-specific fashion. The Court of Appeal warrants credit for emphasising the importance of pre-trial hearings and robust case management.

[close]

[close]

JCL 75 (2011) 528

A Beastly Provision: Why the Offence of 'Intercourse with an Animal' Must Be Butchered
Imogen Jones

This article examines the offence of 'Intercourse with an animal' in s.69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It asks whether s. 69 is compatible with liberal justifications for criminalising such behaviour and questions if the way in which the offence is constructed is defensible. Arguments grounded in the concepts of autonomy, consent and rights are rendered irrelevant when placed against the context of the use of animals by humans more generally. Concurrently, limiting the offence to penile penetration draws an illogical line, excluding harmful and sexually deviant behaviour from the ambit of the offence. Consequently, it is argued that the offence needs to be reconsidered by the legislature in order to achieve a more consistent, principled and rationally defensible approach to interspecies sexual acts.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 65 (2001) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 66 (2002) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 67 (2003) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 68 (2004) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 69 (2005) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 70 (2006) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 71 (2007) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 72 (2008) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 75 (2011) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

[close]