Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: June 2012

10 - Challenging witness evidence



Witnesses, famously said to be the eyes and ears of justice, play a special role in criminal proceedings. Their significance transcends legal systems and is not restricted to a particular type of procedural system or period in the development of a legal system. Although acknowledged across different jurisdictions and times as an important and legitimate basis on which to found a criminal conviction, witness evidence has also traditionally been viewed with suspicion. Witnesses may lie, forget important points, remember things wrongly or simply misinterpret a situation. Witnesses may also be manipulated and their evidence may depend on the questions which they are asked. This explains why witness evidence is not only much discussed, but also separately regulated in the various conventions and constitutional provisions which guarantee the right to a fair trial.

The principal means of regulating witness evidence in modern times is to control the manner in which the evidence is heard and challenged. Notions such as confrontation and cross-examination are thus often characterised in terms of procedural stipulations and defence opportunities: the authorities are required to ensure that the accused is afforded the procedural opportunity to cross-examine, or ‘confront’, witnesses who make incriminatory statements. These principles also have a significant evidential dimension. If an accused is not, or is not sufficiently, afforded the opportunity to challenge the witness evidence, the question arises as to what extent, if at all, that evidence can be used in the determination of the verdict. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to refrain from basing a conviction on untested witness evidence.

Wall, P.Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal CasesSpringfieldCharles C. Thomas 1965 9
Bentham, J.Traité des preuves judiciariesParisBossange Frères 1823 93
Glaser, J.Beiträge zur Lehre vom Beweis im StrafprozessLeipzigDuncker & Humblot 1883 194
Mittermaier, C. J. A.Die Lehre vom Beweis im deutschen Strafprozesse nach der Fortbildung durch Gerichtsgebrauch und deutsche Gesetzbücher in Vergleichung mit den Ansichten des englischen und französischen StrafverfahrensDarmstadtJohann Wilhelm Heyer 1834 290
Bentham, J.Rationale of Judicial EvidenceMill, J. S.LondonHunt and Clarke 1827
Friedman, R. D.The Confrontation Right across the Systemic DivideJackson, J.Langer, M.Tillers, P.Crime, Procedure and Evidence in Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Mirjan DamaškaOxfordHart 2008 261
Findlay, M.Synthesis in Trial Procedures? The Experience of the International Criminal Tribunals 2001 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly26
Roberts, P.On Method: The Ascent of Comparative Criminal Justice 2002 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies539
Nijboer, J. F.Common Law Tradition in Evidence Scholarship Observed from a Continental Perspective 1993 41 American Journal of Comparative Law299
Dickson, W. G.A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in ScotlandEdinburghT. & T. Clark 1887
Wigmore, J. H.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common LawChadbourn, J. H.BostonLittle, Brown 1974
Allen, C.Practical Guide to EvidenceLondonRoutledge-Cavendish 2004 82
Dennis, I. H.The Law of EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 2010
Cross, R.Tapper, C.Cross on EvidenceLondonButterworths 2007 588
Choo, A. L.-T.Hearsay and Confrontation in Criminal TrialsOxfordClarendon Press 1996
Morgan, E. M.Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept 1948 62 Harvard Law Review177
Irish Law Reform Commission 2010
Sklansky, D. A.Hearsay's Last Hurrah 2009 Supreme Court Review 1 4
Summers, S. J.The Right to Confrontation after : “A Continental European Perspective 2004 2 International Commentary on Evidence
Ho, H. L.Confrontation and Hearsay: A Critique of Crawford 2004 8 Evidence & Proof147
Dennis, I.The Right to Confront Witnesses: Meanings, Myths and Human Rights 2010 Criminal Law Review 255 264
Redmayne, M.Confronting Confrontation 2010 10 LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers12
Sklansky, D. A.Anti-Inquisitorialism 2008 122 Harvard Law Review1634
Park, R.Is Confrontation the Bottom Line? 2006 19 Regent University Law Review459
Clark, S.Who Do You Think You Are? The Criminal Trial and Community CharacterDuff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (2): Judgment and Calling to AccountOxfordHart 2006 83
Friedman, R. D.Confrontation: The Search for Basic Principles 1998 Georgetown Law Journal1011
Maffei, S.The European Right to Confrontation in Criminal Proceedings: Absent, Anonymous and Vulnerable WitnessesGroningenEuropa Law Publishing 2006 16
Bück, V.Le Conseil constitutionnel et les réformes pénales récentes 2001 10 Les Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel191
Swart, B.The European Convention as an Invigorator of Domestic Law in the Netherlands 1999 26 Journal of Law and Society38
Summers, S. J.Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human RightsOxfordHart 2007
Roxin, C.Schünemann, B.StrafverfahrensrechtMunichC. H. Beck 2009
Krey, V.Deutsches StrafverfahrensrechtStuttgartKolhammer 2007 118
Kühne, H.-H.Strafprozessrecht: Eine Systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen StrafrechtsHeidelbergC. F. Müller 2010
Esser, R.Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen StrafverfahrensrechtBerlinDe Gruyter 2002 627
Eisenberg, U.Beweisrecht der StPO: SpezialkommentarMunichC. H. Beck 2008
Weigend, T.Spricht Europa mit zwei Zungen? 2001 21 Strafverteidiger63
Trechsel, S.Human Rights in Criminal ProceedingsOxford University Press 2005 310
Stavros, S.The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human RightsDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1993 236
Doran, S.Jackson, J.The Judicial Role in Criminal ProceedingsOxfordHart 2000
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the TrialOxfordHart 2007 64
Ashworth, Contrast A.Redmayne, M.The Criminal ProcessOxford University Press 2010 23
Maas, S.Der Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit in der ReichsstrafprozessordnungBreslauSchletter 1907
Vargha, J.Die Verteidigung in Strafsachen: Historisch und Dogmatisch DargestelltViennaManz'sche Hof- und Universitäts-Buchandlung 1879 288
Minzner, M.Detecting Lies Using Demeanor, Bias and Context 2008 29 Cardozo Law Review2557
Blumenthal, J. A.A Wipe of the Hands, a Lick of the Lips: The Validity of Demeanor Evidence in Assessing Witness Credibility 1993 72 Nebraska Law Review1157
Park, R. C.Empirical Evidence for the Hearsay RuleMirfield, P.Smith, R.Essays for Colin TapperLondonLexisNexis 2003 91
Donatsch, A.Hansjakob, T.Lieber, V.Kommentar zur Schweizerischen StrafprozessordnungZurichSchulthess 2010
Arquint, S.Summers, S.Konfrontationen nur vor dem Gericht 2008 2 Plädoyer38
Albrecht, P.Was bleibt von der Unmittelbarkeit? 2010 128 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht180
Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010
Raitt, F.Evidence: Principles, Policy and PracticeEdinburghW. Green 2008
Trechsel, S.Schlauri, R.Die Praxis des Kassationsgerichts zur EMRKDonatsch, A.Fingerhuth, T.Lieber, V.Rehberg, J.Walder-Richli, H. U.Festschrift 125 Jahre Kassationsgericht des Kantons ZürichZurichSchulthess 2000 423
Wallace, S.The Empire Strikes Back: Hearsay Rules in Common Law Legal Systems and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights 2010 European Human Rights Law Review408
Ho, H. L.A Philosophy of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2008 237
O’Brian, W. E.The Right of Confrontation: US and European Perspectives 2005 121 Law Quarterly Review481
Berger, M.The Deconstitutionalization of the Confrontation Clause: A Proposal for a Prosecutorial Restraint Model 1992 76 Minnesota Law Review557
Clarke, C.Milne, R.National Evaluation of the PACE Investigative Interviewing CourseLondonHome Office 2001 58
Ashworth, A.Pattenden, R.Reliability, Hearsay Evidence and the English Criminal Trial 1986 102 Law Quarterly Review292