Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article reviews the approaches taken by the courts to the admissibility of voice identification evidence in four jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Each jurisdiction addresses the question in a different way and each approach is open to criticism. This paper will argue that a contextualised approach to the problem would allow for improvements which would enhance the quality of the evidence and the adjudicative process.

Keywords

criminal evidence identification interdisciplinary voice identification voice parades

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alison

(1833) Principles and Practice of the Criminal Law of Scotland. Blackwood: Edinburgh.

Atkinson

(2015) Variable factors affecting voice identification in forensic contexts. PhD Thesis, University of York, UK.

Carlson

Gronlund

Clark

(2008) Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14(2): 118–128.

Central Statistics Office (2011) This is Ireland: Highlights from the 2011 census Part 1. Available at: www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011pdr/Census_2011_Highlights_Part_1_web_72dpi.pdf (accessed 7 February 2018).

Clifford

(1980) Voice identification by human listeners: On earwitness reliability. Law and Human Behavior 4(4): 373–394.

Cobbett

(1810) Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials. Vol V. London: Hansard.

College of Policing (2018) Working with suspects. Available at: www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#advokate (accessed 2 May 2018).

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (2007) Lord Advocate’s Guidelines on the Conduct of Visual Identification Procedures. Available at: www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/prosecution-policy-and-guidance?showall=&start=4 (accessed 7 February 2018).

Davidson

Ferguson

(2014) The corroboration requirement in Scottish criminal trials: should it be retained for some more problematic forms of evidence? The International Journal of Evidence and Proof 18(1): 1–27.

10.

Devlin

(1976) Report to Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. London: HMSO.

11.

Flowe

Smith

HMJ

Karoǧlu

Onwuegbusi

Rai

(2015) Configural and component processing in simultaneous and sequential lineup procedures. Memory 24(3): 306–314.

12.

Hollien

(1996) Consideration of guidelines for earwitness lineups. Forensic Linguistics 3(1): 14–23.

13.

Home Office (2003) Advice on the Use of Voice Identification Parades. Circular 057/2003. London: Home Office.

14.

Judicial College (2017) The Crown Court Compendium: Part 1 Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up. London: Judicial College.

15.

Judiciary Studies Committee (2012) Jury Manual: Some Notes for the Guidance of the Judiciary. Available at: www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/Upload/Documents/JURYMANUALFeb12.pdf (accessed 7 February 2018).

16.

Kennedy

(2003) Thirty-six Murders and Two Immoral Earnings. 2nd ed. London: Profile Books.

17.

McGorrery

McMahon

(2017) A fair ‘hearing’: Earwitness identifications and voice identification parades. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 21(3): 262–286.

18.

NI Judiciary (2015) Northern Ireland Crown Court Bench Book. Available at: www.judiciary-ni.gov.uk/publications/crown-court-bench-book (accessed 10 May 2018).

19.

Nolan

(2007) A recent voice parade. International Journal of Speech, Language and Law 10(2): 277–291.

20.

Office for National Statistics (2011) Census: Quick Statistics for England and Wales, March 2011. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011censusquickstatisticsforenglandandwales/2013-01-30 (accessed 7 February 2018).

21.

Ormerod

(2002) Sounding out expert voice identification. Expert evidence and scientific proof in criminal trials. Criminal Law Review 2002(10): 770–790.

22.

Philips

(1981) Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Cmnd 8092. London: HMSO.

23.

Roberts

(2004) The problem of mistaken identification: Some observations on process. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 8(2): 100–119.

24.

Roberts

(2008) Case comment: Evidence voice identification. Criminal Law Review 2008(10): 799–802.

25.

Robson

(2017) A fair hearing? The use of voice identification parades in criminal investigations in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review 2017(1): 36–50.

26.

Sherrin

(2015) Earwitness evidence: The reliability of voice identifications. Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Paper 101. Available at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/olsrps/101 (accessed 12 June 2018).

27.

Tiersma

(2003) Hearing voices: Speaker identification in court. Hastings Law Journal 54: 373–435.

28.

Thayer

(1898) The present and future law of evidence. Harvard Law Review 12: 71–94.

29.

Twining

(1985) Theories of Evidence: Bentham & Wigmore. 1st ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

30.

Twining

(2006) Identification and misidentification: Redefining the problem. In Twining W Rethinking Evidence. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165–191.

31.

Wells

(1978) Applied eyewitness research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(12): 1546–1557.

32.

Wells

(1988) Eyewitness Identification: A System Handbook. Toronto: Carswell.

33.

Wells

Lindsay

Ferguson

(1979) Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology 64(4): 440–448.

34.

Yarmey

(1995) Earwitness speaker identification. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1(4): 792–816.

35.

Roberts

Zuckerman

(2010) Criminal Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

‘Lend me your ears’

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References