John D. Jackson

TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider the extent to which a coherent body of common evidentiary standards is being developed in both domestic and international jurisprudence, with particular reference to the right to a fair trial that has emerged from the European Court of Human Rights and to the attempts in the new international criminal tribunals to fashion agreed approaches towards the regulation of evidence.

TL;DR: The European Court of Human Rights has made a significant contribution to the development of common evidentiary processes across the common law and civil law systems of criminal procedure in Europe as mentioned in this paper, and it is argued that the continuing use of terms such as "adversarial" and "inquisitorial" to describe models of criminal proof and procedure has obscured the genuinely transformative nature of the Court's jurisprudence.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that many of the proposals now contained in the latest Criminal Justice Bill are so preoccupied with rebalancing the system away from offenders that they risk doing injustice to defendants with little tangible benefit to victims and witnesses in terms of rights and remedies.

TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that many of the proposals now contained in the latest Criminal Justice Bill are so preoccupied with rebalancing the system away from offenders that they risk doing injustice to defendants with little tangible benefit to victims and witnesses in terms of rights and remedies.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider how well evidentiary processes within the international criminal tribunals match up to the challenge to provide fair and reliable verdicts, instead of using the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy as the basis for exploring this question, the article takes as its reference point the well recognized norms of equality of arms and the right to adversarial procedure.