*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Criminal Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 38 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n The admissibility of forensic science and medicine evidence under the Uniform Evidence Law<\/i><\/b><\/a> <\/b>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/i>Gary Edmond<\/p>\n This article offers a re-examination of the treatment of expert opinion evidence under the uniform evidence law. Focusing on the terms of s 79, particularly the need for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153specialised knowledge\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, and drawing upon recommendations by scientists, judges and attentive scholars, it argues that reliability should be read into \u00e2\u20ac\u0153specialised knowledge\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and trial judges should be provided with criteria that will assist with admissibility decision making in criminal proceedings. Rather than rely upon traditional admissibility heuristics \u00e2\u20ac\u201c based around considerations such as formal qualifications, experience, the existence of a field, and whether a technique has been previously admitted \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the article recommends moving to criteria that are more consistent with mainstream scientific practice and much more likely to provide substantial insights into the probative value of expert opinion evidence.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Retrials of persons acquitted of indictable offences in England and Australia: Exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy<\/i><\/b><\/a> <\/b>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/i>Marilyn McMahon<\/p>\n The rule against double jeopardy comprises a core rule of criminal procedure, and was significantly expanded in the mid-20th century. However, by the beginning of the 21st century legislatures in many common law jurisdictions had enacted reforms that significantly limit the operation of the rule. In England and several States in Australia, the reforms have restricted the scope of the plea of autrefois acquit and the exercise of the courts abuse of process power by creating exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy. The reforms have also invested prosecutors with a right to appeal certain acquittals. There are two grounds on which the prosecution can apply to have a person\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s acquittal quashed and a new trial ordered: where the acquittal was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153tainted\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, and where \u00e2\u20ac\u0153fresh and compelling evidence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d exists. The accused may also be charged with an \u00e2\u20ac\u0153administration of justice offence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d arising from the original trial. Courts must also consider the interests of justice and whether the accused could obtain a fair trial; no such principles guide courts when considering whether to order a retrial following a successful prosecution appeal. This articles analyses the applications made to have an acquittal quashed and a new trial ordered in both England and Australia, as well as prosecution appeals against acquittal under the new legislation. The analysis suggests that a key task for the future will be to determine how considerations of finality, fairness and freedom from oppressive re-litigation \u00e2\u20ac\u201c key principles underlying the rule against double jeopardy \u00e2\u20ac\u201c should inform such decision-making.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n DIGEST OF CRIMINAL LAW CASES<\/a><\/p>\n For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0WAU – Crim LJ Vol 38 Pt 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n