The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court

A Response to R v T

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except ‘where there is a firm statistical base’. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-29
JournalThe International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2012

Fingerprint

system comparison
evaluation
evidence
appeal
statistics
paradigm
science
court
opinion
comparison
ruling
systems comparison
trial

Keywords

  • Bayesian
  • Bayes
  • Admissibility
  • Validity
  • Reliability

Cite this

Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart. / The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court : A Response to R v T. In: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 2012 ; Vol. 16, No. 1. pp. 1-29.
@article{bae5dc0266324f5793211ea57a88cd86,
title = "The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court: A Response to R v T",
abstract = "In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except ‘where there is a firm statistical base’. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.",
keywords = "Bayesian, Bayes, Admissibility, Validity, Reliability",
author = "Morrison, {Geoffrey Stewart}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "1--29",
number = "1",

}

The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court : A Response to R v T. / Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart.

In: The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Vol. 16, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 1-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court

T2 - A Response to R v T

AU - Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except ‘where there is a firm statistical base’. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.

AB - In R v T the Court of Appeal concluded that the likelihood-ratio framework should not be used for the evaluation of evidence except ‘where there is a firm statistical base’. The present article argues that the court's opinion is based on misunderstandings of statistics and of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence. The likelihood-ratio framework is a logical framework and not itself dependent on the use of objective measurements, databases and statistical models. The ruling is analysed from the perspective of the new paradigm for forensic-comparison science: the use of the likelihood-ratio framework for the evaluation of evidence; a strong preference for the use of objective measurements, databases representative of the relevant population, and statistical models; and empirical testing of the validity and reliability of the forensic-comparison system under conditions reflecting those of the case at trial.

KW - Bayesian

KW - Bayes

KW - Admissibility

KW - Validity

KW - Reliability

UR - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390

U2 - 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390

DO - 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.390

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 1

EP - 29

IS - 1

ER -