The court heard an appeal against a conviction for murder, the principle evidence being in the form of likelihood ratios in the interpretation of footwear marks.
Thomas LJ, giving the reserved judgment of the court, stated that if a footwear examiner expressed a view that went beyond saying that the footwear could or could not make the mark concerned, the report should make it clear that the view is subjective and based on experience of the examiner, so that words such as ‘scientific’ used in making evaluations should not in fact be used because they would, before a jury, give an impression of a degree of precision and objectivity which is not present given the current state of expertise. The factors that the expert does use should, however, be set out and explained.
Thomas LJ, Beatson, Kitchin JJ
[2011] 1 Cr App Rep 9, [2010] EWCA Crim 2439
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – South, Regina v CACD 18-Mar-2011
Appeal against conviction of burglary. Admission of bad character evidence (many convictions of dishonesty) against alibi witness put forward only late – use of footprint matching evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.425560 br>