co-financed by a grant under the european commission’s agis programme eu criminal justice...

Co-financed by a grant under the

European Commission’s AGIS Programme

EU Criminal Justice ConferenceSafeguarding the use of expert evidence in the European Union

Tuesday 23 September 2008



Expert Evidence – problem or solution?

Chair: Bob Heslett, Vice President, The Law Society

Keynote speakers: Lord Goldsmith QC, European Chair of Litigation, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP & Former Attorney General,

Andrew Rennison, Forensic Science Regulator

Regulating forensic science

Andrew Rennison

Background House of Commons Home Affairs Committee 1989

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology 1993

Miscarriages of justice cases – ‘forensic science played a prominent part’

Royal Commission 1991 – 1993

Caddy report 1996

Forensic Science Working Group 1997 – practitioner registration

Parliament - Forensic Science on Trial 2005

England and Wales – competitive market

Scotland and Northern Ireland

Law Commission – expert evidence

O v e r s e e i n g Q u a l i t y

Regulation of standards


Practitioner

registration

ISO standards?

• Establish quality standards (science)

• Monitor compliance

Provision of forensic science services

National forensic science databases:

•NDNADB

•NBIS

Deal with complaints about quality standards

• Internal (police)

• External (suppliers)

Ensure accreditation of suppliers and competence of practitioners

To provide advice (Ministers, CJS…) and guidance (suppliers) on quality standards

Forensic Science Regulator


VisionTo achieve: comprehensive standards framework

provider, practitioner and method (product or service)training

level playing field for all suppliers and practitioners UK – wide quality standards maintained in the face

of the changing market and increased competition Confidence in the use of forensic science.


Strategy

Engage with stakeholders Work with delivery partners Rely on the domain experts Identify and manage risk Principles first


Principles Overriding obligation to the Criminal Justice System Providers should be accredited by a recognised independent body to

accepted standards; Practitioners should be able to demonstrate, through an independent

process, their on-going competence and development; Each method should be based on sound science supported by

sufficient data to justify its use within the CJS and a robust interpretation model, and, where possible, validated according to accepted scientific procedures;

Accountability for standards rests with senior managers; and Records of accreditation, competence and validation must be

accurate, retained and available for disclosure through the court process.


ScopeForensic scienceAny scientific or technical knowledge that is applied to the investigation of crime and the evaluation of evidence to assist the courts in resolving questions of fact in criminal cases. Hard sciences.

PractitionerIncludes the work of all those who contribute to the collection, analysis and reporting of the evidence.


UK criminal courts / prosecution process

Equipment, scene, victim, suspect, collection, examination, analysis, reporting, evidence…….

Specialist groups

Quality standards – standards and validation Andrew Rennison

The user requirement from the Court perspective Ewen Smith

DNA analysis Karen Squibb-Williams Digital forensics Prof Jim Fraser Practitioner competency DCC Clive Wolfendale Forensic pathology Dr Millward-Saddler Special reviews


Law Commission


In every trial, juries are required to make determinations of disputed factual issues. Where to do so requires specialised knowledge, experts in the relevant field are called upon to help the jury interpret the evidence. This is to ensure that jurors do not draw mistaken inferences from the evidence. Although juries should not defer to experts' knowledge and opinions, there remains the danger that they will do so, especially if the field of expertise is particularly difficult to comprehend.

This gives rise to a real danger if there are legitimate questions about the validity of the expert's opinion. This may be because the expert's field is a new or developing science with little in the way of peer review, or because there are doubts as to the validity of the methodology employed. The problem is accentuated if there is no available expert in the same field who can be called by the opposing party to provide an effective criticism. In such cases, the jury may have no option but to defer to the view of the expert.

A related problem is that judges, advocates and jurors may not appreciate the limitations of expert – and particularly scientific – evidence.

A number of cases in recent years have suggested that these are real difficulties which require a solution. In this project we are seeking to address the problems outlined above associated with the admissibility and understanding of expert evidence in criminal proceedings.

Changing standards framework


Other projects

Quality standards delivered in-house by police forces

Review of the forensic regulatory function

Complaints handling Risk management


[email protected]



Chair: Ian Kelcey, Chair, Criminal Law Society, The Law Society

The Prosecution Perspective Karen Squibb-Williams, Strategic Policy Advisor, CPS

The Forensic Science Practitioner PerspectiveMike Allen, Council of Forensic Science Practitioners

Safeguarding the use of expert Safeguarding the use of expert evidenceevidence

The forensic practitioner and The forensic practitioner and registrationregistration

Mike AllenMike Allen

Developmental projects consultant to Council for the Registration Developmental projects consultant to Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitionersof Forensic Practitioners

Purpose of presentationPurpose of presentation

To explore mechanisms for assessing the To explore mechanisms for assessing the quality of an expert witness.quality of an expert witness.

What are the qualities of an expert What are the qualities of an expert witness?witness?

• CompetenceCompetence

• IntegrityIntegrity

What is competence?What is competence?

• The quality of being competent; The quality of being competent; adequacy; possession of required skill, adequacy; possession of required skill, knowledge, qualification, or capacity.knowledge, qualification, or capacity.

How is competence measured?How is competence measured?

• Qualifications.Qualifications.• Reputation.Reputation.• Years of experience.Years of experience.• Membership of approved Membership of approved

professional group.professional group.

None of the aboveNone of the above

• Competence is Competence is doingdoing what you do properly. what you do properly.

• Once you are deemed competent, there is a Once you are deemed competent, there is a presumption that you are doing your job to presumption that you are doing your job to the best of your ability – unless there is the best of your ability – unless there is evidence to the contrary (integrity).evidence to the contrary (integrity).

Council for the Registration of Council for the Registration of Forensic PractitionersForensic Practitioners

• This registration body has over 2700 This registration body has over 2700 registrants in nearly 30 specialties registrants in nearly 30 specialties (anthropology to linguistics to (anthropology to linguistics to fingerprints to firearms).fingerprints to firearms).

• It assesses It assesses current case workcurrent case work by peer by peer review.review.

Assessment processAssessment process

• A selection of recent cases is assessed A selection of recent cases is assessed against set criteria by an experienced against set criteria by an experienced practitioner.practitioner.

• The forensic process is similar in all The forensic process is similar in all disciplines and the assessment process disciplines and the assessment process reflects this.reflects this.

BenefitsBenefits

• IndependentIndependent

• Reassures the courtsReassures the courts

• Mechanism for complaints (Code of Mechanism for complaints (Code of Conduct)Conduct)

www.crfp.org.ukwww.crfp.org.uk



EU Criminal Justice ConferenceSafeguarding the use of expert evidence in the European Union

Coffee break



The Judicial Perspective

Speaker: Mr Justice Fulford QC, International Criminal Court



The Defence Perspective

Chair: Joanna Evans, Barrister, 25 Bedford Row

Panel members: George Gebbie, Advocate, European Criminal Bar AssociationNeil O’May, Partner, Bindmans LLPChristopher Sallon QC, Doughty Street Chambers

George C. Gebbie, Advocate

Member of the List Counsel of the ICC

Coordinator of the EC BA Expert Witness Project

London 23rd September 2008

Cause for concern in the safeguarding of expert evidence in The European Union

George C. Gebbie, AdvocateMember of the List Counsel of the ICCCoordinator of the EC BA Expert Witness Project

London 23rd September 2008

The Policewoman

www.shirleymckie.com

The Prints

Madrid Train Bombings 11th March 2004

The Treaty of Prüm

“The aim of the Prüm Treaty is to intensify and accelerate the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities. Data such as DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration details can be compared and exchanged.”

Here!!



EU Criminal Justice Conference

LunchStrand Fleet & Bell Rooms



A European Union Perspective

Chair: Louise Hodges, Chair, UK Task Force

Panel members: Anders Aagaard, European CommissionAnand Doobay, Partner, Peters & PetersAled Williams, UK national member for Eurojust

EU PERSPECTIVE: EU PERSPECTIVE: EUROJUSTEUROJUST LLaw Society 23 September 2008Aled Williams

OutlineOutline

What is Eurojust ?What is Eurojust ?

The future ?The future ?– Treaty of LisbonTreaty of Lisbon

– Expert evidence and amendments to Expert evidence and amendments to Eurojust DecisionEurojust Decision

SOME CJS CO-SOME CJS CO-0PERATION DATES0PERATION DATES 1995 Europol Convention1995 Europol Convention

– Decision 2009Decision 2009

1996 Liaison Magistrates1996 Liaison Magistrates– FR: 12+ LMsFR: 12+ LMs– UK: FR ES IT PAK USAUK: FR ES IT PAK USA

1998 European Judicial Network+20081998 European Judicial Network+2008 2002 Eurojust Decision (revised 2008)2002 Eurojust Decision (revised 2008) 2007 Treaty of Lisbon 2007 Treaty of Lisbon

Free MovementFree Movement

30 EU Legal 30 EU Legal Systems Systems

500m pop.500m pop.

‘‘Judicial Co-operation Unit of the Judicial Co-operation Unit of the European Union’European Union’

27 MS prosecutors / judges/ police 27 MS prosecutors / judges/ police

Fight ‘serious cross border crime, Fight ‘serious cross border crime, particularly when it is organised, and particularly when it is organised, and involves two or more Member States’ involves two or more Member States’ - JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000- JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000

WHAT IS EUROJUST ?WHAT IS EUROJUST ?

SOME CRIME AREASSOME CRIME AREAS

Fraud Fraud

DrugsDrugs

THBTHB

TerrorismTerrorism

HOW EUROJUST HOW EUROJUST WORKS WORKS Case Referrals Case Referrals

Co-ordination MeetingsCo-ordination Meetings

Strategic MeetingsStrategic Meetings

LEVEL I - meeting

......

BE

IPL

SLD

S

F

UK

L

NLConcerned

NM’sSL

BE

UK

D

LEVEL II - meeting

SL

BE

UK

DLEVEL III - meeting

CONCERNED NAT. MEMBERS + JUDICIAL A/O POLICE

AUTHORITIES OFCONCERNED COUNTRIES

BEBE

UK UK

D

DSL

SL

27 National Members

OPERATIONAL MEETINGS

Co-ordination meeting

Case evolution Case evolution 2002 - 20082002 - 2008

202

300

381

588

771

1085

757

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

EXPERT EVIDENCE AND EXPERT EVIDENCE AND EUROJUST ILLUSTRATIONEUROJUST ILLUSTRATION Estonian armed gang operating in Estonian armed gang operating in

various MSvarious MS

Europol Liaison Bureaux Europol Liaison Bureaux

Eurojust co-ordination re collection Eurojust co-ordination re collection of evidence of evidence

CROSS BORDER FRAUD CROSS BORDER FRAUD EUROJUST ILLUSTRATIONEUROJUST ILLUSTRATION Boiler room fraudsBoiler room frauds

Jurisdiction Jurisdiction – Territorial; active; passive; universalTerritorial; active; passive; universal

Practicalities Practicalities

LIMITATIONS IN FIGHTING LIMITATIONS IN FIGHTING CROSS BORDER FRAUDCROSS BORDER FRAUD DisplacementDisplacement

Extradition/EAW problemsExtradition/EAW problems

Trial costsTrial costs

SUCCESS IN FIGHTING SUCCESS IN FIGHTING CROSS BORDER FRAUDCROSS BORDER FRAUD European Arrest WarrantsEuropean Arrest Warrants

Restraint and Confiscation Restraint and Confiscation

Trial pendingTrial pending

OPERATION BAGHADOPERATION BAGHAD

Human trafficking/illegal Human trafficking/illegal immigration immigration

9 MS 9 MS Europol analysis work fileEuropol analysis work file Co-ordination meetings at EurojustCo-ordination meetings at Eurojust Concerted action June 2008Concerted action June 2008

– EAWs and searchesEAWs and searches 75 arrests 75 arrests

THE FUTURE: THE FUTURE: EUROJUST AND EXPERT EUROJUST AND EXPERT EVIDENCEEVIDENCE Treaty of LisbonTreaty of Lisbon

Eurojust Decision amendmentsEurojust Decision amendments

ENFSI projectENFSI project

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (STILL) 3(STILL) 3RDRD PILLAR PILLAR

EUROPEAN UNION

First : EC Second:CFSP Third : JHA/AFSJ

LISBON AND CRIMINAL LISBON AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE CO-OPERATION JUSTICE CO-OPERATION PILLAR STRUCTURE DISMANTLEDPILLAR STRUCTURE DISMANTLED

– Treaty on European Union TEU Treaty on European Union TEU – Treaty on Functioning of the European Union TFEUTreaty on Functioning of the European Union TFEU

QMVQMV

ECJECJ

CO-DECISIONCO-DECISION

EPPOEPPO

ENHANCING ENHANCING COOPERATION EUROJUST COOPERATION EUROJUST TEU Art. 31.2TEU Art. 31.2The Council shall encourage cooperation The Council shall encourage cooperation

through Eurojust through Eurojust by:by:(a) proper (a) proper coordinationcoordination

between ..national prosecuting between ..national prosecuting authorities;authorities;

(b) (b) supportsupport for criminal investigations in for criminal investigations in serious cross-border crime, particularly serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime, taking account, of organised crime, taking account, of analyses carried out by Europol;analyses carried out by Europol;

(c) (c) cooperationcooperation between Eurojust and the between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, to facilitate European Judicial Network, to facilitate letters rogatory and extradition requests. letters rogatory and extradition requests.

ENHANCING ENHANCING COOPERATION EUROJUST COOPERATION EUROJUST TFEUTFEU Art. 85 Art. 85 ..the ..the European ParliamentEuropean Parliament andand

the Council, by means of the Council, by means of regulationsregulations adopted in adopted in accordance with the ordinary accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall legislative procedure, shall determine Eurojust’s structure, determine Eurojust’s structure, operation, field of action and operation, field of action and tasks.tasks.

ENHANCING ENHANCING COOPERATION EUROJUST COOPERATION EUROJUST TFEUTFEU Art. 85 Art. 85 “… “…ordinary legislative procedure, ordinary legislative procedure,

shall determine Eurojust’s shall determine Eurojust’s structure, …structure, …

Commission proposalCommission proposal Council QMV Council QMV European Parliament co-decisionEuropean Parliament co-decision

ENHANCING ENHANCING COOPERATION COOPERATION AFTER AFTER LISBON: TFEU Art 85 LISBON: TFEU Art 85 (a)(a) initiation of criminal initiation of criminal

investigationsinvestigations, .., ..proposingproposing the the initiation of prosecutions initiation of prosecutions

(b)(b) coordination of investigations and coordination of investigations and prosecutions…;prosecutions…;

(c) strengthening of judicial cooperation, (c) strengthening of judicial cooperation, including by resolution of conflicts of including by resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction and by close cooperation jurisdiction and by close cooperation with the EJNwith the EJN

EUROJUST AND EPPOEUROJUST AND EPPO AFTER LISBON? TFEU Art AFTER LISBON? TFEU Art 8686 TEU……TEU……

Constitutional Treaty ……III 274Constitutional Treaty ……III 274

““a EPPO from a EPPO from Eurojust”Eurojust”

Lisbon :”Lisbon :”may establish a European may establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office from Public Prosecutor’s Office from Eurojust.”Eurojust.”

EPPOEPPO AFTER LISBON? AFTER LISBON?TFEU Art 86TFEU Art 86

EPPO proposal EPPO proposal

Unanimity Unanimity – 9/27 9/27 – Enhanced co-operation…PrEnhanced co-operation…Prüm ?üm ?

financial interests of EU….financial interests of EU….

EPPOEPPO AFTER LISBON? AFTER LISBON?TFEU Art 85..TFEU Art 85..

(a)(a) initiation of criminal initiation of criminal investigationsinvestigations, .., ..proposingproposing the initiation of the initiation of prosecutionsprosecutions

(b)(b) … ….EPPO by default ?.EPPO by default ?

CHANGES TO EUROJUST CHANGES TO EUROJUST DECISION AND (EXPERT) DECISION AND (EXPERT) EVIDENCE IN GENERALEVIDENCE IN GENERALImmediate MLA problemsImmediate MLA problems

Delay Delay

Format and admissibility Format and admissibility

CHANGES AND (EXPERT) CHANGES AND (EXPERT) EVIDENCE IN GENERALEVIDENCE IN GENERAL

Solutions to MLA problems?Solutions to MLA problems?

Delay: Delay: – strengthening Eurojust strengthening Eurojust – (direct transmission)(direct transmission)

Format and admissibility MLAC Art.4Format and admissibility MLAC Art.4

CHANGES TO CHANGES TO EUROJUST DECISIONEUROJUST DECISION

Eurojust as precursor to Eurojust as precursor to EPPOEPPO

Eurojust as alternative to Eurojust as alternative to EPPOEPPO

CHANGES TO CHANGES TO EUROJUST DECISIONEUROJUST DECISIONOperational capabilitiesOperational capabilities

– LocationLocation– On-call co-ordination On-call co-ordination – PowersPowers

Information exchangeInformation exchange

Liaison magistratesLiaison magistrates

CHANGES TO CHANGES TO EUROJUST DECISION: EUROJUST DECISION: POWERSPOWERS National Members acting National Members acting

through Eurojustthrough Eurojust

Eurojust CollegeEurojust College

Common powers for national Common powers for national members as national members as national authorities?authorities?

CHANGES TO CHANGES TO EUROJUST POWERS EUROJUST POWERS VIA NMVIA NM Request special investigative Request special investigative

measures measures

Response to requests “without undue Response to requests “without undue delay”delay”

Non-compliance with requests to be Non-compliance with requests to be justified,justified, Article 8 ….”operational Article 8 ….”operational reasons”reasons”

CHANGES TO CHANGES TO EUROJUST POWERS AS EUROJUST POWERS AS COLLEGECOLLEGE• Non-binding opinions on conflicts of Non-binding opinions on conflicts of

jurisdictionjurisdiction

• Complaints re judicial cooperationComplaints re judicial cooperation

Non-compliance with requests to be Non-compliance with requests to be justified, Article 8 ….”operational justified, Article 8 ….”operational reasons”reasons”

POWERS VIA NMs as POWERS VIA NMs as NATIONAL NATIONAL AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES National Members acting as National Members acting as

national authoritiesnational authorities

Common powersCommon powers

Constitutional ClauseConstitutional Clause

POWERS VIA NMs as POWERS VIA NMs as NATIONAL NATIONAL AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES

““Ordinary powers” Ordinary powers”

Powers exercised in Powers exercised in agreementagreement

Urgent powers Urgent powers


““Ordinary powers” Ordinary powers” requests for judicial co-operation requests for judicial co-operation

including regarding instruments giving including regarding instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual effect to the principle of mutual recognitionrecognition

ReceiveReceive TransmitTransmit Facilitate executionFacilitate execution


Requests in agreement with Requests in agreement with national authoritiesnational authorities

IssueIssue ExecuteExecute Order investigative measures Order investigative measures

(coordination)(coordination) Authorise controlled deliveries Authorise controlled deliveries


Urgent casesUrgent cases- Authorise and coordinate - Authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries in own controlled deliveries in own StateState- Execute in relation to own - Execute in relation to own State request for judicial State request for judicial cooperationcooperation


Safeguard clause 9f Safeguard clause 9f (a) constitutional rules, or(a) constitutional rules, or

(b) fundamental aspects of CJS re:(b) fundamental aspects of CJS re:(i) division of powers between police, (i) division of powers between police, prosecutors and judges,prosecutors and judges,

(ii) functional division of tasks between (ii) functional division of tasks between prosecution authoritiesprosecution authorities

(iii) federal structure of MS concerned.(iii) federal structure of MS concerned.

INFORMATION INFORMATION EXCHANGE Art 13.1EXCHANGE Art 13.1

Member States shall Member States shall exchange with Eurojust any exchange with Eurojust any information necessary for information necessary for the performance of its the performance of its tasks….tasks….


•JITsJITs

•Serious cross-border crimeSerious cross-border crime

•Conflicts, deliveries,problemsConflicts, deliveries,problems

INFO. EXCHANGE: MS INFO. EXCHANGE: MS OBLIGATION NOTIFY EJOBLIGATION NOTIFY EJ

Requests or decisions directly involving 3 MS if Requests or decisions directly involving 3 MS if punishable by min-max at least 5 years punishable by min-max at least 5 years

AND listed offence AND listed offence

– Arms, drugs, human trafficking Arms, drugs, human trafficking – Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography – Corruption Fraud, euro counterfeiting, money Corruption Fraud, euro counterfeiting, money

launderinglaundering– Attacks against information systemsAttacks against information systems

OR organised crimeOR organised crime

OR serious cross-border dimension or EU repercussionOR serious cross-border dimension or EU repercussion

EXPERT EVIDENCE EXPERT EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATION: MADRIDILLUSTRATION: MADRID Locating the expertLocating the expert

Facilitation: Facilitation: – Evidence format : EU 2000 MLACEvidence format : EU 2000 MLAC

Extent of information recoveryExtent of information recovery

– Partners: Spanish court, UKCA, Partners: Spanish court, UKCA, EmbassyEmbassy

C(IC)A 2003 court nominationC(IC)A 2003 court nomination

2000 EU MLAC Art. 2000 EU MLAC Art. 4:Format4:Format Where mutual assistance is afforded, the Where mutual assistance is afforded, the

requested Member State shall comply requested Member State shall comply with the formalities and procedures with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the requesting expressly indicated by the requesting Member State, unless otherwise provided Member State, unless otherwise provided in this Convention and provided that such in this Convention and provided that such formalities and procedures are not formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of contrary to the fundamental principles of law in the requested Member State.law in the requested Member State.

BETTER EU EVIDENCE BETTER EU EVIDENCE FLOW THROUGH FLOW THROUGH AMENDMENTS AMENDMENTS • Increased information flowIncreased information flow• MS response re clausesMS response re clauses

•Article 9f (powers)..reciprocity?Article 9f (powers)..reciprocity?•Article 13.8a (information ex.)Article 13.8a (information ex.)

• Eurojust influencing toolsEurojust influencing tools

EurojustEurojust

Safeguarding the Use of Expert Evidence in the European Union: A European Union

Perspective

Anand Doobay

Partner, Peters & Peters

The Law Society: Criminal Justice Conference 23rd September 2008

Cross Border Use of Expert Evidence

• Increase of cross border crime leading to increasing numbers of criminal investigations / prosecutions involving evidence from more than one Member State.

• Location of evidence

• Location of experts

MLA Framework in the UK• Not necessary in the UK for expert evidence to be obtained from

overseas using an MLA process for it to be admissible.

• Mutual legal assistance in the UK does not require the existence of a treaty arrangement or international agreement.

• Relevant treaty provisions must be taken into consideration when interpreting the applicable domestic legislation.

• The UK is party to a large number of multilateral conventions and agreements dealing that deal with MLA such (e.g. UNCAC, UNCTOC) supplemented by a number of bilateral MLA treaties (e.g. EU Convention on MLA in Criminal Matters).

• The provision of mutual assistance in criminal matters in the UK is principally governed by the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (‘CICA 2003’) and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (‘the POCA order’).

UK Central Authority for MLA requests

• Responsibility for mutual assistance in criminal matters in England & Wales lies with the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“UK Central Authority”)

• Serious Organised Crime Agency (‘SOCA’) has primary responsibility for processing requests for investigative help from overseas. Requests for investigative assistance need not be sent to the UK Central Authority unless it is a requirement of the foreign authority making the request.

• The Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines are published by the United Kingdom Central Authority - requests both to and from the UK

CICA 2003Chapter 2, section 7 of CICA 2003 Requests for assistance in obtaining evidence abroad

(1) If it appears to a judicial authority in the United Kingdom on an application made by aperson mentioned in subsection (3)—

(a) that an offence has been committed or that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, and(b) that proceedings in respect of the offence have been instituted or that the offence is being investigated, the judicial authority may request assistance under this section.

(2) The assistance that may be requested under this section is assistance in obtainingoutside the United Kingdom any evidence specified in the request for use in the proceedings or investigation.

Chapter 2, section 8 of CICA 2003 Sending requests for assistance

(1) A request for assistance under section 7 may be sent—(a) to a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the evidence is situated, or(b) to any authority recognised by the government of the country in question as the appropriate authority for receiving requests of that kind.

Practical Issues

• Admissibility / Weight

(including expertise)

• Unable to attend trial

• Expert Evidence / Assistance

• Compulsion

Practical Issues

• Disclosure

• Availability of MLA for defence

• Evidential chain

• Compulsion to obtain evidence

EU PERSPECTIVE: EU PERSPECTIVE: EUROJUSTEUROJUST Law Society 23 September 2008Law Society 23 September 2008Aled WilliamsAled Williams

OutlineOutline

What is Eurojust ?What is Eurojust ?

The future ?The future ?– Treaty of LisbonTreaty of Lisbon

– Expert evidence and amendments to Expert evidence and amendments to Eurojust DecisionEurojust Decision

SOME CJS CO-SOME CJS CO-0PERATION DATES0PERATION DATES 1995 Europol Convention1995 Europol Convention

– Decision 2009Decision 2009

1996 Liaison Magistrates1996 Liaison Magistrates– FR: 12+ LMsFR: 12+ LMs– UK: FR ES IT PAK USAUK: FR ES IT PAK USA

1998 European Judicial Network+20081998 European Judicial Network+2008 2002 Eurojust Decision (revised 2008)2002 Eurojust Decision (revised 2008) 2007 Treaty of Lisbon 2007 Treaty of Lisbon

Free MovementFree Movement

30 EU Legal 30 EU Legal Systems Systems

500m pop.500m pop.

‘‘Judicial Co-operation Unit of the Judicial Co-operation Unit of the European Union’European Union’

27 MS prosecutors / judges/ police 27 MS prosecutors / judges/ police

Fight ‘serious cross border crime, Fight ‘serious cross border crime, particularly when it is organised, and particularly when it is organised, and involves two or more Member States’ involves two or more Member States’ - JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000- JHA Council Decision of 14 December 2000

WHAT IS EUROJUST ?WHAT IS EUROJUST ?

ICC and Eurojust