AshworthA. (1977) ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’Criminal Law Review723–35.
2.
AshworthA. (1998) The Criminal Process (Clarendon Press: Oxford).
3.
BrighamJ.C.PfeiferJ.E. (1994) ‘Evaluating the Fairness of Lineups’ in RossD. F.ReadJ. D.TogliaM. P. (eds). Adult Eyewitness Testimony (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) 201.
4.
BrighamJ.C.ReadyD.J. (1985) ‘Own-race Bias in Lineup Construction’9Law and Human Behavior415–24.
5.
BuckeT.BrownD. (1997) In Police Custody: Police Powers and Suspect's Rights under the Revised PACE Codes of Practice. Home Office Research Study No. 174 (HMSO: London).
6.
CutlerB.L.BermanG.L.PenrodS.FisherR.P. (1994) ‘Conceptual, Practical and Empirical Issues Associated with Eyewitness Identification Test Media’ in RossD.F.ReadJ.D.TogliaM. P. (eds). Adult Eyewitness Testimony (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) 163.
7.
CutlerB.L.FisherR.P. (1990) ‘Live Lineups, Videotaped Lineups and Photo Arrays’3Forensic Reports439–48.
8.
CutlerB.L.FisherR.P.ChicvaraC.L. (1989) ‘Eyewitness Identification from Live Versus Videotaped Lineups’2Forensic Reports93–106.
9.
Home Office (1999) Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice D (HMSO: London).
10.
KrafkaC.PenrodS. (1985) ‘Reinstatement of Context in a Field Experiment on Eyewitness Identification’49Journal of Personality and Social Psychology58–69.
11.
LindsayR.C.L.LeaJ.A.FulfordJ.A. (1991) ‘Sequential Lineup Presentation: Technique Matters’76Journal of Applied Psychology741–5.
12.
LindsayR.C.L.LeaJ.A.NosworthyG.J.FulfordJ.A.HectorJ.LeVanV.SeabrookC. (1991) ‘Biased Lineups: Sequential Presentation Reduces the Problem’76Journal of Applied Psychology796–802.
13.
LindsayR.C.L.WellsG.L. (1985) ‘Improving Eyewitness Identification from Lineups: Simultaneous Versus Sequential Lineup Presentation’70Journal of Applied Psychology556–64.
14.
LoftusE.F.HoffmanH. (1989) ‘Misinformation and Memory: The Creation of New Memories’118Journal of Experimental Psychology: General100–2.
15.
RattnerA. (1988) ‘Convicted But Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and the Criminal Justice System’12Law and Human Behavior283–93.
16.
Runciman Report (1993) Cmnd 2263 (HMSO: London).
17.
ShapiroP.N.PenrodS.D. (1986) ‘Meta-analysis of Facial Identification Studies’100Psychological Bulletin139–56.
18.
ShepherdJ.W. (1983) ‘Identification after Long Delays’ in Lloyd-BostockS.CliffordB. (eds), Evaluating Witness Evidence (Wiley: Chichester) 173.
19.
TinsleyY. (2000) ‘Identification Procedures and Options for Reform’31Victoria University of Wellington Law Review117–29.
20.
ZanderM.HendersonP. (1993) Crown Court Study, The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No. 19 (HMSO: London).