T, R. v

T, R. v

The conviction was unsafe because the expert's use of likelihood ratios and statistical calculations was not disclosed to the jury or counsel, the data used were unreliable and insufficient for mathematical evaluation, and the process lacked transparency, contrary to principles of open justice and admissibility of expert evidence.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Appellant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Forensic Evidence, Use of Likelihood Ratios, Bayesian Analysis, Transparency in Expert Reports
Criminal Law Evidence Law Expert Evidence Admissibility of Forensic Evidence Use of Likelihood Ratios Bayesian Analysis Transparency in Expert Reports

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Appellant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evaluative expert evidence on footwear marks using likelihood ratios is reliable and admissible
  2. 2 Whether the omission of statistical calculations and likelihood ratios from expert reports affected the safety of the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the expert's methodology and lack of transparency rendered the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was unsafe because the expert's use of likelihood ratios and statistical calculations was not disclosed to the jury or counsel, the data used were unreliable and insufficient for mathematical evaluation, and the process lacked transparency, contrary to principles of open justice and admissibility of expert evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • The conviction is quashed.
  • Strict compliance with transparency obligations in expert reports is required for future cases.