79028 Complex Forensic Cases (Law for Biology)
Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a
particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source
of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.
Subject handbook information prior to 2017 is available in the Archives.
Credit points: 6 cp
Result type: Grade and marks
Requisite(s): 91139c Complex Forensic Cases (Biology)
The lower case 'c' after the subject code indicates that the subject is a corequisite. See definitions for details.
Anti-requisite(s): 79024 Complex Forensic Cases (Law for Chemistry)
Description
This subject deals with the legal issues involving forensic science in the field, and the impact of scientific evidence on the legal system. Students receive training in the preparation of reports and in the presentation of evidence in court. Significant cases involving the application, interpretation and admissibility of forensic science in the Australian justice system is examined in detail. The subject is studied under the following broad topic areas: introduction to the legal system; the role of the expert; the rules of evidence; the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW); the importance of expert evidence in legal cases; and the role of advocacy.
The subject aims to provide an understanding of:
- the legal and practical issues relating to forensic science
- the impact of forensic science on the legal system, and
- the admissibility requirements in relation to forensic science evidence.
Subject learning objectives (SLOs)
Upon successful completion of this subject students should be able to:
| 1. | understand the nature of the legal system in Australia and the adversarial process and to demonstrate an ability to extract from case authorities the facts, issues and legal principles, the reason for the decision contained therein; |
|---|---|
| 2. | interpret relevant legislation such as the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW); |
| 3. | apply the laws of evidence, particularly as they relate to expert evidence, and to apply techniques and principles gained in previous forensic science subjects in relation to the presentation of scientific material in an admissible and persuasive form; |
| 4. | understand the different ways in which similar issues are approached in science and in law; |
| 5. | understand and assume the role of the expert witness in the Australian Judicial System; |
| 6. | understand the ethical issues and practical implications associated with the role of an expert witness. |
Teaching and learning strategies
Strategy 1 - Throughout the session, students will be guided through a range of topics that have been designed to stimulate the discussion and understanding of the relevant topics. This will be achieved through the combination of class discussion, lecture, group work, audio visual and practical visits and exercise (where possible).
Strategy 2 - The lecture will introduce the topic and provide an overview and explanation of the various issues and associated case law and legislation.
Strategy 3 - Students will contribute to the learning process through classroom discussion.
Strategy 4 - Students will undertake independent research of various legal /forensic science issues as required.
Strategy 5 - Through the use of a Mock Trial scenario, students will develop their critical thinking skills, as well as improve their verbal communication and presentation skills.
Strategy 6 - Through the presentation of a written report, students will develop their critical thinking skills, as well as improve their written communication and legal research skills.
Content (topics)
Topic 1 - Ethics, law and forensic science. Review of legal concepts. The Judicial method. Basic legal research.
Topic 2 –Criminal and Tort Law for forensic scientists
Topic 3 - Examination of legislative provisions relating to the collection and handling of forensic samples in NSW.
Topic 4 - The rules of evidence and how they relate to the giving of evidence. The various ways in which expert evidence may be adduced.
Topic 5 - An overview of the rules of advocacy. The roles of the forensic scientist in case preparation and conduct. The roles of the expert witness. The rules of evidence and how they relate to the giving of expert evidence.
Topic 6 - The Jury system and the way expert evidence is evaluated.
Topic 7 - Wrongful convictions. The limits of science in the legal process. What can go wrong? Contamination, poor statistical evidence.
Topic 8 - Wrongful Convictions - Australian Case Studies
Topic 9 - Double jeopardy. The legal principle and its relevance to expert evidence.
Topic 10 - The art of expert report writing.
Topic 11 - An overview of the Coronial investigation process.
Topic 12 - Trial procedures.
Assessment
Assessment task 1: Class Participation
| Weight: | 10% |
|---|---|
| Criteria: | Students will be required to actively contribute to class activities and be in a position to lead the classroom discussion if required to do so. |
Assessment task 2: Mid-session Examination
| Weight: | 40% |
|---|---|
| Criteria: | Students will be required to answer eight (8) short answer questions. The exam will be Closed Book and will take two (2) hours to complete. |
Assessment task 3: Final Assessment
| Weight: | 50% |
|---|---|
| Length: | 2,000 words excluding footnotes. (1000 words per casenote). There is a 10% plus or minus leeway. |
| Criteria: | Students will be required to prepare two case notes from a list of cases that will be provided. Students will be provided with a guideline on the preparation and writing of case notes.
|
Required texts
There is no prescribed text for this subject.
Recommended texts
J Carvan, Understanding the Australian Legal System, (7th Ed.), Lawbook Co (2015)
I Freckelton and H Selby, Expert Evidence: Law Practice, Procedure and Advocacy, (5th Ed.), Lawbook Co, (2013)
A Jackson, J Jackson Forensic Science, (3rd Ed.), Pearson (2011)
T Mauet, L McCrimmon Fundamentals of Trial Techniques, (3rd Ed.), Lawbook Co, (2011)
M Meek, The Australian Legal System, (Nutshell), (4th Ed.), Lawbook Co (2008)
S Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law, (11th Ed.), Lawbook Co (2014)
D Ross, Advocacy, (2nd Ed.), Cambridge University Press (2007)
H Selby, Winning advocacy: preparation, questions, argument, (3rd Ed.), Oxford University Press (2009)
R B Wilson, Evidence, (Nutshell), Lawbook Co (2014)
References
Useful Websites
- www.austlii.edu.au - Austlii on-line legal research database (legislation and cases)
- www.comlaw.gov.au - Cth Attorney Generals Dept on-line legal research database (legislation)
- www.legislation.nsw.gov.au - NSW on-line legal research database (legislation)
- http://www.alrc.gov.au/ - Australian Law Reform Commission
- http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/pages/LRC_index - NSW Law Reform Commission
- http://www.lib.monash.edu/subjects/law/forensic.html#leg - Monash University Forensic Science reference links
- http://www.nifs.com.au/ - National Institute of Forensic Sciences
- http://www.scientific.org/ - Scientific Testimony
- http://www.crimtrac.gov.au/ - Policing information service
- http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/structure/specialist_operations/forensic_services - NSW Police forensic services
Other resources
Expert Evidence Articles - General
“A framework for ethical thinking” Santa Clara University 2009
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html
Buckley, R. and McDonald, J. Science and Law - The Nature of Evidence, Science and Uncertainty
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/science/regulation/articles/artregulation1.html
Esteban H. and McConnell, R.D Reliability Is the Gauge: Recent Daubert Challenges to Experts in Environmental Litigation, Natural Resources & Environment, Volume 22, Number 4, Spring 2008
http://www.keanmiller.com/docs/daubert.pdf
McLellan CJ, “Expert witnesses: The experience of the Land and Environment Court in NSW September 2005
Biscoe J, “Scientific Experts in the Land and Environment Court” 3 September 2009
http://www.lawsociety.com.au/idc/groups/public/documents/internetyounglawyers/026378.pdf
“Should expert witnesses and barristers be safe from being sued?” The Law Report ABC Radio (10 May 2011)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2011/3209941.htm
Gary Edmond, Bryan Found, Kristy Martire, Kaye Ballantyne, David Hamer, Rachel Searston, Matthew Thompson, Emma Cunliffe, Richard Kemp, Mehera San Roque, Jason Tangen, Rachel Dioso-Villa, Andrew Ligertwood, Brynn Hibbert, David White, Glenn Porter, Andrew Roberts, and Gianni Riberio, ‘Model forensic science’ (2016) 46 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences (in press).
Gary Edmond, ‘Legal and non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence’ (2016) 20 International Journal of Evidence & Proof (in press).
Gary Edmond, ‘A Closer Look at Honeysett: Enhancing our Forensic Science and Medicine Jurisprudence’ (2015) 17 Flinders Law Journal (in press).
G. Edmond, ‘What lawyers should know about the forensic “sciences”’ (2015) 37 Adelaide Law Review (in press).
S. Cole and G. Edmond, ‘Science without precedent: The impact of the National Research Council report on the admissibility and use of forensic science evidence’ in S. Cooper and M. Henneberg (eds), Criminal Law and Forensic Evidence: Views from the United Kingdom and the United States of America (2015) (in press).
E. Cunliffe and G. Edmond, ‘Gaitkeeping in Canada: Mis-steps in assessing the reliability of expert testimony’ (2014) 92 Canadian Bar Review 327-368.
G. Edmond, D. Hamer, A. Ligertwood and M. San Roque, ‘Christie, section 137 and forensic science evidence after Dupas v The Queen and R v XY’ (2014) 40 Monash Law Review (in press).
G. Edmond, R. Searston, J. Tangen and I. Dror, ‘Contextual bias and cross-contamination in the forensic sciences: The corrosive implications for investigations, plea bargains, trials and appeals’ (2014) 13 Law, Probability & Risk 1-25.
G. Edmond et al, ‘How to cross-examine forensic scientists: A guide for lawyers’ (2014) 39 Australian Bar Review 174-197.
G. Edmond, ‘The admissibility of forensic science and medicine evidence under the Uniform Evidence Law’ (2014) 38 Criminal Law Journal 136-158.
G. Edmond, ‘The “science” of wrongful convictions’ (2014) 37 UNSW Law Journal 376-406.
G. Edmond and J. Vuille, ‘Comparing the use of forensic science evidence in Australia, Switzerland and the United States: Transcending the adversarial/non-adversarial dichotomy’ (2014) 54 Jurimetrics Journal 221-276.
G. Edmond and L. Meintjes-van der Walt, ‘Blind justice? Forensic science and the use of CCTV images as identification evidence in South Africa’ (2014) 131 South African Law Journal 109-148.
G. Edmond and M. San Roque, ‘Before the High Court - Honeysett v The Queen: Forensic science, “specialised knowledge” and the Uniform Evidence Law’ (2014) 36 Sydney Law Review 323-344.
G. Edmond and M. San Roque, ‘Justicia’s Gaze’ (2013) 11 Surveillance & Society 252-271.
G. Edmond, ‘(ad)Ministering justice: Expert evidence and the professional responsibilities of prosecutors’ (2013) 36 UNSW Law Journal 921-953.
G. Edmond, M. Thompson and J. Tangen, ‘A guide to interpreting forensic testimony: Scientific approaches to fingerprint evidence’ (2013) 12 Law, Probability & Risk 1-25.
Gary Edmond, Simon Cole, Emma Cunliffe and Andrew Roberts, ‘Admissibility Compared: The reception of incriminating expert evidence (i.e., forensic science) in four adversarial jurisdictions’ (2013) 3 University of Denver Criminal Law Review 31-109.
Gary Edmond, ‘Expert evidence in reports and courts’ (2013) 45 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.
Gary Edmond and Lirieka Meintjes-van der Walt, 'Blind justice? Forensic science and the use of CCTV images as identification evidence in South Africa' (2013) South African Law Journal (forthcoming).
Gary Edmond, 'Just truth? Carefully applying history, philosophy and sociology of science to the forensic use of CCTV images, for example' (2012) Studies in the History & Philosophy of Science.
Gary Edmond and Kent Roach, 'A Reply to Chasse's 'Junk Science by way of a Higher Burden of Proof" (2012) 16 Canadian Criminal Law Review 391-413.
Gary Edmond, David Hamer and Andrew Ligertwood, 'Expert evidence after Morgan, Wood and Gilham' (2012) 112 Precedent 28-35.
Andrew Ligertwood and Gary Edmond, Law, 'Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law' (2012) 11 Law, Probability & Risk (forthcoming).
Andrew Ligertwood and Gary Edmond, Law, 'A just measure of probability' (2012) Law, Probability & Risk (forthcoming).
Gary Edmond and Mehera San Roque, 'The Cool Crucible: Forensic Science and the Frailty of the Criminal Trial' (2012) 24 Current Issues in Criminal Justice 51-68.
Bryan Found and Gary Edmond, 'Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists' (2012) 44 Australian Journal of Forensic Science 193-196.
Gary Edmond, 'Advice for the courts? Sufficiently reliable assistance with forensic science and medicine (Part 2)' (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 263-297.
Gary Edmond, 'Is reliability sufficient? The Law Commission and expert evidence in international and interdisciplinary perspective (Part 1)' (2012) 16 International Journal of Evidence & Proof 30–65.
Gary Edmond and Andrew Roberts, 'Procedural Fairness, the Criminal Trial and Forensic Science and Medicine' (2011) 33 Sydney Law Review 359-394.
Gary Edmond, Kristy Martire & Mehera San Roque, '"Mere guesswork": Cross-Lingual Voice Comparisons and the Jury' (2011)33 Sydney Law Review 395-425.
Gary Edmond & Andrew Roberts, 'The Law Commission's Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Sufficiently Reliable?' (2011) Criminal Law Review 844-862.
Gary Edmond, Kristy Martire and Mehera San Roque, 'Unsound law: Issues with ("expert") voice comparison evidence' (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 52-112.
Gary Edmond and Kent Roach, 'A Contextual Approach to the Admissibility of the State's Forensic Science and Medical Evidence' (2011) 61 University of Toronto Law Journal 343-409.
Gary Edmond, 'The admissibility of incriminating expert opinion evidence in the US, England and Canada' (2011) 23 Judicial Officer's Bulletin 67-70.
Gary Edmond, 'Actual innocents? Legal limitations and their implications for forensic science and medicine' (2011) 43 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 177-212.
Gary Edmond, 'The building blocks of forensic science and law: Recent work on DNA profiling (and photo comparison)' (2011) 41 Social Studies of Science 127-152.
Gary Edmond, 'Suspect sciences? Evidentiary Problems with Emerging Technologies' (2010) 2 International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics 40-72.
Gary Edmond, 'Impartiality, efficiency or reliability? A critical response to expert evidence law and procedure in Australia' (2010) 42 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 83-99.
Gary Edmond, Richard Kemp, Glenn Porter, David Hamer, Mike Burton, Kath Biber and Mehera San Roque, 'Atkins v The Emperor: The "Cautious" use of Unreliable "Expert" Opinion' (2010) 14 The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 146-165.
Gary Edmond & David Mercer, 'Norms and Irony in the biosciences: Ameliorating critique in synthetic biology' (2009) 21 Law & Literature (445-470).
Gary Edmond, K. Biber, R. Kemp & G. Porter, 'Law's looking glass: Expert identification evidence derived from photographic and video images' (2009) 20 Current Issues in Criminal Justice 337-377.
Gary Edmond & M. San Roque, 'Quasi-Justice: Ad hoc experts and identification evidence' (2009) 32 Criminal Law Journal 8-33.
Gary Edmond, 'Merton and the hot tub: Scientific conventions and expert evidence in Australian civil procedure' (2009) 72 Law & Contemporary Problems 159-189.
Gary Edmond, 'Judging the scientific and medical literature: Some legal implications of changes to biomedical research and publication' (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies523-561.
Gary Edmond, 'Specialised knowledge, the exclusionary discretions and reliability: Reassessing incriminating expert opinion evidence' (2008) 31 UNSW Law Journal 1-55
Gary Edmond, 'Secrets of the "hot tub": Expert witnesses, concurrent evidence and judge-led law reform in Australia' (2008) 27 Civil Justice Quarterly 51-82.
Gary Edmond, 'Expert Evidence', in Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2008).
Gary Edmond, 'Supersizing Daubert: Science for litigation and its implications for legal practice and scientific research' (2007) 52 Villanova Law Review 857-924.
Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Anti-Social Epistemologies' (2006) 36 Social Studies of Science 843-853.
Gary Edmond, 'Disorder with law: The determination of the geographical indication for the Coonawarra wine region' (2006) 28 Adelaide Law Review 59-183.
Gary Edmond, 'Judging Surveys: Experts, Empirical Evidence and Law Reform' (2005)33 Federal Law Review 95-139.
Gary Edmond, 'Thick decisions: Expertise, Advocacy and reasonableness in the Federal Court of Australia' (2004) 74 Oceania 190-230.
Gary Edmond, 'After objectivity: Expert evidence and procedural reform' (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131-163.
Gary Edmond, 'Whigs in Court: Historiographical Problems with Expert Evidence' (2002) 14 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 123-175.
Gary Edmond, 'Legal Engineering: Contested representations of law, science (and non-science) and society' (2002) 32 Social Studies of Science 371-412.
Gary Edmond, 'Constructing miscarriages of justice: Misunderstanding the role of scientific evidence in high profile criminal appeals' (2002) 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 53-89.
Gary Edmond, 'The law-set: The legal-scientific production of medical propriety' (2001) 26 Science, Technology & Human Values 191-226.
Gary Edmond, 'Judicial representations of scientific evidence' (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 216-251.
Gary Edmond, 'Deflating Daubert: Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael and the inevitability of general acceptance (Frye)' (2000) 23 University of New South Wales Law Journal 38-62.
