Discussion paper: Hard cases make bad law--reactions to R v T

Abstract

In the case of R v T (2010), the Court of Appeal for England and Wales rejected the testimony of an expert who had used likelihood ratios to assess the probative value of shoe-print evidence. Because likelihood ratios are widely used in forensic science, and their use has been actively promoted by leaders in the field (Association of Forensic Science Providers, 2009; Cook et al., 1998; Evett, 1998; Robertson and Vignaux, 1995), the court’s opinion has understandably caused consternation in the forensic science community (Berger et al. 2011; Robertson et al. 2011; Redmayne et al. 2011). Recognizing the importance of the issues involved, the editors of Law, Probability and Risk have devoted this issue to articles commenting on the case. At the invitation of Editor Colin Aitken,...