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

Keywords

  • Bayesian
  • Bayes
  • Admissibility
  • Validity
  • Reliability

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The Likelihood-Ratio Framework and Forensic Evidence in Court: A Response to R v T'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this