Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- 3 The Transformation of Chinese Evidence Theories and System
- 4 Truth Finding and the Mirage of Inquisitorial Process
- 5 Evidential Remedies for Procedural Rights Violations
- 6 Common Law Evidence and the Common Law of Human Rights
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
6 - Common Law Evidence and the Common Law of Human Rights
Towards a Harmonic Convergence?
from Part II - Convergences between Systems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022
By
Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- 3 The Transformation of Chinese Evidence Theories and System
- 4 Truth Finding and the Mirage of Inquisitorial Process
- 5 Evidential Remedies for Procedural Rights Violations
- 6 Common Law Evidence and the Common Law of Human Rights
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
Summary
This paper considers the impact which European human rights law has made upon the common law rules of evidence with reference to the approach the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted towards exclusionary rules. Particular attention will be given to rules that have been developed by the ECtHR in relation to the right to counsel during police questioning (the so-called ‘Salduz’ doctrine) and the right to examine witnesses (the so-called ‘sole or decisive’ evidence rule). It will be argued that the most recent decisions in these respects appear to dilute some of the impact that these rules appeared to have made to the common law and diminish the effectiveness of the Court as a setter of evidentiary standards for domestic jurisdictions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidential Legal ReasoningCrossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions, pp. 98 - 122Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Giannoulopoulos, D. (2016). Strasbourg Jurisprudence, Law Reform and Comparative Law: A Tale of the Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Five Countries. Human Rights Law Review, 16(1), 103–12.Google Scholar
Goss, R. (2017). Out of Many, One? Strasbourg’s Ibrahim Decision on Article 6, Modern Law Review, 80(6), 1137–50.Google Scholar
Hoyano, L. (2014). What Is Balanced on the Scales of Justice? In Search of the Essence of the Right to a Fair Trial. Criminal Law Review, 1, 4–29.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. and Roberts, P. (2012). Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Procedural Traditions, London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. (2005). The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment. Modern Law Review, 68(5), 737–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. (2016). Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence. Modern Law Review, 79(6), 987–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. and Roberts, P. (2018). Beyond Common Law Evidence: Reimagining, and Reinvigorating, Evidence Law as Forensic Science, in Brown, D. and Turner, J., eds., Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. and Summers, S. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. and Summers, S. (2013). Confrontation with Strasbourg: UK and Swiss Approaches to Criminal Evidence. Criminal Law Review, 60(2), 115–31.Google Scholar
Pivarty, A. (2018). The Right to Custodial Legal Assistance in Europe: In Search for the Rationales. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 26(1), 62–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2010) Criminal Evidence, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spano, R. (2017). Terrorism and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 6th Annual Lecture of the Human Rights Law Centre’s International Humanitarian Unit, University of Nottingham, 10 March 2017.Google Scholar
Swift, E. (2000). One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer’s Triumph. California Law Review, 88, 2439–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, J. B. (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law, Boston: Little-Brown.Google Scholar
Trechsel, S. (2005). Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trechsel, S. (2018). The Character of the Right to a Fair Trial, in Jackson, J. and Summers, S., eds., Obstacles to Fairness in Criminal Proceedings: Individual Rights and Institutional Forms, London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trial at Common Law, 1st ed., Boston: Little-Brown.Google Scholar