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

2 - The common law tradition

Summary

Introduction: free proof and the common law

One of the enduring myths in discourse about the law of evidence is that it is a peculiar characteristic of the common law and that there is no such thing as a ‘law of evidence’ in continental Europe. The technical rules of evidence that are a product of the common law system are contrasted with the principle of ‘free proof’ that dominates continental processes of proof. Although we shall see that it is important to understand that there are fundamental differences in the way in which evidence is regulated between the two traditions, it is misleading to characterise the two systems in this manner. For one thing, there is often a lack of clarity about what is meant by ‘free proof’ and depending on each layer of meaning it is by no means always self-evident that common law systems are necessarily less ‘free’ than continental processes.

At one level the term may simply mean an absence of rules of evidence altogether. As we saw in the last chapter, any adjudicative system must have some rules of evidence and proof for determining when facts are considered to be proved and how they are to be proved. When the task of obtaining and adducing evidence is put in the hands of the parties, there is inevitably a need for more rules to regulate the handling of evidence than when a system puts the task of evidence management in the hands of a court. Even Bentham, who argued for a natural as opposed to a technical system of adjudication, accepted that there was a need for adjudicators to exclude evidence where it was irrelevant or superfluous or its production would involve preponderant vexation, expense or delay in the individual case.

Thayer, J. B.A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1898
South African Law Commission 2002
Twining, W.Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence 1997 31 Israel Law Review439
Dwyer, D.What Does it Mean to be Free? The Concept of “Free Proof” in the Western Legal Tradition 2006 3 International Commentary on Evidence
Bentham, J.A Treatise on Judicial EvidenceLondonPaget 1825 229
Twining, W.Theories of Evidence: Bentham and WigmoreLondonWeidenfeld & Nicolson 1985
Damaška, M.Free Proof and its Detractors 1995 43 American Journal of Comparative Law
Jackson, J. D.Making Juries Accountable 2002 50 American Journal of Comparative Law
Bentham, J.Rationale of Judicial EvidenceLondonHunt & Clark 1827
Twining, W.The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence ScholarshipRethinking Evidence: Exploratory EssaysCambridge University Press 2006
Allen, R.The Narrative Fallacy, the Relative Plausibility Theory and a Theory of the Trial 2005 3 International Commentary on Evidence
Pardo, M.The Political Morality of Evidence Law 2007 5 International Commentary on Evidence
Stein, A.Foundations of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2005 11
Ho, H. L.A Philosophy of Evidence LawOxford University Press 2008 48
Berman, H.Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal TraditionCambridge, MAHarvard University Press 1983 57
Holdsworth, W.A History of English LawLondonMethuen 1922 305
Cohen, L. J.Freedom of ProofFacts in LawWiesbadenARSP Beiheft 1983 6
Gilbert, G.The Law of EvidenceDublinS. Cotter 1754
Nance, D.The Best Evidence Principle 1988 13 Iowa Law Review
Pattenden, R.Authenticating “Things” in English Law: Principles for Adducing Tangible Evidence in Common Law Jury Trials 2008 12 International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Wigmore, J. H.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1983
Galligan, D.More Scepticism about Scepticism 1988 8 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
McNamara, P.The Canons of Evidence – Rules of Exclusion or Rules of Use? 1986 10 Adelaide Law Review
Spencer, J.Hearsay Evidence in Criminal ProceedingsOxfordHart 2008
Swift, E.One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer's Triumph 2000 88 California Law Review
Imwinkelried, E. J.The Worst Evidence Principle: The Best Hypothesis as to the Logical Structure of Evidence Law 1992 46 University of Miami Law Review
Morgan, E.The Jury and the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence 1937 4 University of Chicago Law Review
Seigel, M.A Pragmatic Critique of Modern Evidence Scholarship 1994 88 Northwestern University Law Review
Damaška, M.Evidence Law AdriftNew HavenYale University Press 1997
Jackson, J.Doran, S.Judge without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary SystemOxfordClarendon 1995
Resnik, J.Managerial Judges 1982 96 Harvard Law Review
Langer, M.The Rise of Managerial Judging in International Criminal Law 2004 53 American Journal of Comparative Law
1997 49 359
Roberts, P. Adrift? Damaška's Comparative Method and the Future of Common Law EvidenceCrime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan DamaškaOxfordHart 2008
Allen, R. J.The Simpson Affair, Reform of the Criminal Justice Process and Magic Bullets 1996 67 University of Colorado Law Review
Cross, R.The Right to Silence and the Presumption of Innocence – Sacred Cows or Safeguards of Liberty? 1970 11 Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law
Jackson, J.Hearsay: The Sacred Cow That Won't Be Slaughtered? 1998 2 International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Lempert, R.The New Evidence Scholarship: Analysing the Process of Proof 1986 66 Boston University Law Review
Jackson, J.Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence 1996 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Goldman, A.Knowledge in a Social WorldOxford University Press 1999
Zuckerman, A. A. S.The Principles of Criminal EvidenceOxfordClarendon 1989
Law CommissionEvidence in Criminal Proceedings: Previous Misconduct of a DefendantLondonHMSO 1996
Law CommissionEvidence of Bad Character in Criminal ProceedingsLondonHMSO 2001
Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010 590
Bostock, S. LloydThe Effects on Juries of Hearing about the Defendant's Previous Criminal Record: A Simulation Study 2000 Criminal Law Review 734
Callen, C.Notes on a Grand Illusion: Some Limits on the Use of a Bayesian Theory in Evidence Law 1982 57 Indiana Law Journal
Allen, R. J.The Nature of Juridical Proof 1991 13 Cardozo Law Review
Hareira, A.An Early Holistic Conception of Judicial Fact-Finding 1986 Juridical Review 79
1997
Pennington, N.Hastie, R.A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model 1991 13 Cardozo Law Review
MacCrimmon, M.Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1988–89 Term – The Process of Proof: Schematic Constraints 1990 1 Supreme Court Law Review (2d)
Cohen, L. J.The Probable and the ProvableOxfordClarendon 1977 275
Kahneman, D.Slovic, P.Tversky, A.Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and BiasesCambridge University Press 1982
Jackson, J. D.Modern Trends In Evidence Scholarship: Is All Rosy in the Garden? 2003 21 Quinnipiac Law Review
Tillers, P.Mapping Inferential Domains 1986 66 Boston University Law Review
Menashe, D.Shamash, M. E.The Narrative Fallacy 2005 3 International Commentary on Evidence
2001
Burn, R.Fallacies on Fallacies: A Reply 2005 3 International Commentary on Evidence
MacCrimmon, M.Developments in the Law of Evidence: The 1989–90 Term – Evidence in Context 1991 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 385
1993 122
Currie, R. J.The Contextualised Court: Litigating “Culture” in Canada 2005 9 International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Boyle, C.Finding Facts Fairly in Roberts and Zuckerman's 2005 2 International Commentary on Evidence
Jasanoff, S.Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in AmericaCambridge, MAHarvard University Press 1995
Redmayne, M.Expert Evidence and Criminal JusticeOxfordClarendon 2001
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal TrialOxfordHart 2007
Shapiro, B.Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth Century England: A Study of the Relationships between Natural Science, Religion, History, Law and LiteraturePrinceton University Press 1983
, J. D.Two Methods of Proof in Criminal Procedure 1988 51 Modern Law Review
Beecher-Monas, E.Evaluating Scientific EvidenceCambridge University Press 2007
Muensterberg, H.On the Witness Stand: Essays on Psychology and CrimeNew YorkDoubleday 1908
Greer, D. S.Anything but the Truth? The Reliability of Testimony in Criminal Trials 1971 11 British Journal of Criminology
Spencer, J.Flin, R.Children's EvidenceLondonBlackstone 1992
Ellison, L.The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable WitnessOxfordClarendon 2001
Loftus, E.Eyewitness TestimonyCambridge, MAHarvard University Press 1979
Scheck, B.Neufeld, P.Dwyer, J.Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it RightNew YorkRandom House 2000
Jasanoff, S.Handbook on Science and Technology StudiesBostonMIT Press 2008
Barnes, B.Bloor, D.Henry, J.Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological AnalysisChicago University Press 1996
Haack, S.Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and the Law 2003 2 Journal of Law, Probability and Risk
Goldberg, S.Culture Clash: Law and Science in AmericaCambridge, MAHarvard University Press 1994
Schuck, P. H.Multi-Culturalism Redux: Science, Law and Politics 1993 11 Yale Law & Policy Review
Roberts, P.The Science of Proof: Forensic Science Evidence in English Criminal TrialsHandbook of Forensic ScienceCullompton, DevonWillan 2008
Allen, R. J.Miller, J.The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education 1993 87 Northwestern University Law Review
Allen, R. J.Expertise and the Decision 1994 84 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
Huber, P. W.Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the CourtroomNew YorkBasic Books 1991
Roberts, A.Drawing on Expertise: Legal Decision-Making and the Reception of Expert Evidence 2008 Criminal Law Review 443
Jackson, J.The Ultimate Issue Rule: One Rule Too Many 1984 Criminal Law Review 75
Dennis, I.The Law of EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 2010
2007
Ligertwood, A.Edmond, G.Australian EvidenceChatswoodLexisNexis 2010
1997
Denveaux, M. P.Risinger, D. M. and Expert Reliability: How the Question You Ask Gives the Answer You Get 2003 34 Seton Hall Law Review
1997
Wales Law Commission reportThe Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales: A New Approach towards Evidentiary ReliabilityLondonHMSO 2009
Mnookin, J.Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise 2001 87 Virginia Law Review
Risinger, D. M.Goodbye to All That, or A Fool's Errand, By One of the Fools: How I Stopped Worrying About Court Responses to Handwriting Identification (and “Forensic Science” in General) and Learned to Love Misinterpretations of 2007 43 Tulsa Law Review
1997
Giannelli, P. C.McMunigal, K. C.Prosecutors, Ethics and Expert Witnesses 2007 75 Fordham Law Review
Leclerc, O.Le Juge et l’Expert: Contribution à l’Etude des Rapports entre le Droit et la ScienceParisLibrarie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence 2005
Van Kampen, P. T. C.Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice SystemAntwerpen and GroningenIntersentia Rechswetenschappen 1998
Haack, S.Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law 2004 17 Ratio Juris
Nijboer, J. F.Forensic Expertise in Dutch Criminal Procedure 1991 14 Cardozo Law Review
May, R.Criminal EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 1995
Smith, J. C.Criminal EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 1995
Doak, J.McGourlay, C.Criminal Evidence in ContextExeterLaw Matters 2005
May, R.Wierda, M.International Criminal EvidenceArdsleyTransnational Publishers 2001
Lloyd-Bostock, S.Thomas, C.The Decline of the “Little Parliament”: Juries and Jury Reform in England and WalesWorld Jury SystemsOxford University Press 2000
Roberts, P.Rethinking the Law of Evidence: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for Teaching and Research 2002 55 Current Legal Problems317
Cappelletti, M.The Judicial Process in Comparative PerspectiveOxford University Press 1989
2004
Loughlin, M.Sword and Scales: An Examination of the Relationship between Law and PoliticsOxfordHart 2000
Halliday, S.Schmidt, P.Human Rights Brought Home: Socio-Legal Perspectives on Human Rights in the National ContextOxfordHart 2004
Jackson, J.Adrift but Still Clinging to the Wreckage: A Comment on Damaška's 1998 49 Hastings Law Journal380
Little, R.Addressing the Evidentiary Sources of Wrongful Convictions: Categorical Exclusion of Evidence in Capital Statutes 2008 37 Southwestern University Law Review
2008
1967
1988
Farmer, L.Responsibility and the Proof of GuiltModern Histories of Crime and PunishmentStanford University Press 2007