Standards and Methods of Proof: An English Perspective on Della Torre’s Comparative Legal History

Paul Roberts

doi:10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i9.23151

Standards and Methods of Proof

An English Perspective on Della Torre’s Comparative Legal History

Autores/as

Paul Roberts University of Nottingham, School of Law

Descargas

PDF (pre-published) (eng)

Resumen

In an erudite and wide-ranging contribution to this Revista, Jacopo Della Torre leverages the analytical power of comparative legal history to illuminate contemporary debates surrounding the standard of proof for criminal convictions. At the invitation of the Editors, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on Della Torre’s thought-provoking article.¹ The following remarks are of two broad kinds. The first section of this Comment addresses methodological issues in comparative legal scholarship, largely expressing agreement with Della Torre’s general approach, but with a few caveats and clarifications for further consideration. In the second section, I turn to practical questions of procedural jurisprudence and institutional practice in criminal adjudication. With the disciplinary agenda and biases of an English lawyer, my thoughts on these issues will embroider upon, and diverge somewhat, from Della Torre’s exposition. I will also suggest some minor exegetical corrections and refinements.

Palabras clave

standard of proof

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Brodowski, D., Fissell, B. and Roberts, P. (2024). Pretext, Deception and Entrapment in Criminal Investigations. In K. Ambos, A. Duff, A. Heinze, J. Roberts and T. Weigend (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (volume 3). Cambridge University Press.

Brook, C. A., Fiannaca, B., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., Pomerance, R. and Roberts, P. (2021). A Comparative Examination of Police Interrogation of Criminal Suspects in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 29(4). https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol29/iss4/2/

Dahlman, C., Stein, A. and Tuzet, G. (2021). Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.

Damaška, M. (1997). Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5(25), p. 25-40.

Damaška, M. (2018). Evaluation of Evidence: Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches. Cambridge University Press.

Darbyshire, P., Maughan, A. and Stewart, A. (2001). What Can We Learn from Published Jury Research? Findings for the Criminal Courts Review 2001. Criminal Law Review, p. 970-979

Della Torre, J. (2025). Taking the Evolution of the Standards of Proof for Criminal Conviction Seriously. Quaestio facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 8, p. 155-216. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i8.23112

Ellison, L. and Munro, V. E. (2015). ‘Telling tales’: exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room. Legal Studies, 35(2), p. 201-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12051

Epps, D. (2015). The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice. Harvard Law Review, 128(4), p. 1065-1151.

Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Helm, R. K. (2024). How Juries Work. Oxford University Press.

Hobsbawn, E. (1988). The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848. Abacus.

Johnson, P. (1991). The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830. HarperCollins.

Keane, A. and McKeown, P. (2019). Time to abandon "beyond reasonable doubt" and "sure": The case for a new direction on the criminal standard and how it should be used. Criminal Law Review, 6, p. 505-527.

Kotsoglou, K. N. (2020). Proof beyond a context-relevant doubt. A structural analysis of the standard of proof in criminal adjudication. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), p. 111-133.

Marcus, P. (2013). Judges Talking To Jurors in Criminal Cases: Why U.S. Judges Do It So Differently From Just About Everyone Else. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 30, p. 1-64. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1660

Nelken, D. (1995). Disclosing/Invoking Legal Culture: an Introduction. Social and Legal Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/096466399500400401

Nelken, D. (ed.) (2000). Contrasting Criminal Justice. Ashgate.

Picinali, F. (2015). The threshold lies in the method: instructing jurors about reasoning beyond reasonable doubt. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 19(3), p. 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712715571511

Picinali, F. (2022). Justice In-Between: A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. Oxford University Press.

Roberts, P. (2010). Confronting the Challenges of Cosmopolitan Criminal Jurisprudence. Inaugural Lecture, University of Nottingham, 10 September 2010

Roberts, P. (2020). Adrian Zuckerman’s New Evidence Scholarship. In R. Assy and A. Higgins (eds.), Principles, Procedure, and Justice: Essays in Honour of Adrian Zuckerman. Oxford University Press.

Roberts, P. (2022). Beccaria Now: (Re)reading On Crimes and Punishment. In A. du Bois-Pedain and S. Eldar (eds), Re- Reading Beccaria: On the Contemporary Significance of a Penal Classic. Hart.

Roberts, P. (2023). Theorising Evidence Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 43(3), p. 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad007

Roberts, P. (2024). Justice In-Between: A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. In Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books. Routledge. https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/justice-in-between/.

Roberts, P. (2025). Reasonable Doubts?: Rationalising Appellate Review of Witness Credibility in Criminal Trials. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 28(1).

Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2022). Criminal Evidence (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Shapiro, B. J. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. California University Press.

Stephen, J. F. (1881). Digest of the Law of Evidence (4th English edition).

Stephen, J. F. (1996) [1883]. A History of the Criminal Law of England (volume 1). Routledge.

Thomas, C. (2013). Avoiding the Perfect Storm of Juror Contempt. Criminal Law Review, 6, p. 483-503. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1390245/1/Chery_Thomas_article__final.pdf

Tuzet, G. (2020). Assessment Criteria or Standards of Proof? An Effort in Clarification. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), p. 91-109.

Waldman, T. (1959). Origins of the Legal Doctrine of Reasonable Doubt. Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(3), p. 299-316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708111

Weisselberg, C. D. (2017). Exporting and Importing Miranda. Boston University Law Review, 97, p. 1235-1291. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2017/08/WEISSELBERG.pdf

Whitman, J. Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press.

AG v Dean and Canons of Windsor (1860) 11 ER 472, 8 HLC 369

Criminal Appeal Act 1968, c. 19. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/contents

Criminal Justice Act 1988, c. 33. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents

Criminal Practice Directions 2023. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf

Judicial College (2024). The Crown Court Compendium (Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up). https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-I-July-2024.pdf

Domestic Abuse Act 2021, c. 17. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/contents

Enohin v Wylie (1862) 11 ER 924, 934; 10 HLC 1, 24.

Ferguson v R (1979) 1 WLR 94, 99

Forbes v Meer Mahomed Tuquee (1870) 20 ER 614, 13 Moore Ind App 438

In re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970).

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents