Bayes theorem has limited role in the courts

Wednesday 27 October 2010 at 10:25 am | In News | Post Comment

Footwear impressions - no new rules needed
R v T CA (2010)

D was tried for murder. Expert evidence based upon the use of likelihood ratios was admitted in evidence. The evidence centred around a pair of Nike trainers that were unlikely to have made the marks at the scene, the expert calculated that wear, or a dislodged stone etc could have changed the mark.

Held: In the area of footwear evidence, there is no place for use of a formula to calculate probability. That practice had no sound basis and outside the field of DNA, Bayes theorem and likelihood ratios should not be used.

Not Guilty (retrial ordered)
Per curiam: It is highly unlikely that the process by which expert evidence was formulated and adduced in this case will ever be repeated. […] There is no need for any new process. […]
Comment: The Court of Appeal has somewhat unusually permitted the publication of a redacted judgment, because of the importance of the judgment

No Comments yet »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^