A European Evidence (Air)Space? Taking Cross-Border Legal Admissibility of Forensic Evidence to a Higher Level

Sofie Depauw

doi:10.5771/2193-5505-2016-1-82

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–2
- 3–6 Editorial 3–6
- 7–112 Articles 7–112
  - 7–38 Res Judicata in Criminal Matters and the European Courts – A Comparison Between Germany and Italy (Part I) Anne Schneider Anne Schneider 7–38
  - 39–59 Multilingual Norms in European Criminal Law Georg C. Langheld Georg C. Langheld 39–59
  - 60–81 Targeted Financial Sanctions: Criminal in Nature? Lisa F.M. Ansems, Charlene R.R. Loeve Lisa F.M. Ansems, Charlene R.R. Loeve 60–81
  - 82–98 A European Evidence (Air)Space? Taking Cross-Border Legal Admissibility of Forensic Evidence to a Higher Level Sofie Depauw Sofie Depauw 82–98
  - 99–112 The European Agenda on Security – A Comment Athina Giannakoula Athina Giannakoula 99–112
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

EuCLR European Criminal Law Review , page 82 - 98

A European Evidence (Air)Space? Taking Cross-Border Legal Admissibility of Forensic Evidence to a Higher Level

Autoren

Sofie Depauw

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2016-1-82
- ISSN: 2191-7442
- ISSN online: 2193-5505
Zusammenfassung

It must be said that Tyndall could not more eloquently express the importance of looking beyond one’s own borders and pushing the boundaries which are thereby revealed. The statement of the scientist should be kept in mind in as many contexts as possible. With regard to the very specific context of evidence acceptance, two boundaries seem to be-or require to be-pushed. On the one hand, despite the fact that law has often been considered a ‘soft science’, law and science tend rather to be positioned at the opposite sides of almost every spectrum. Several efforts have already been made to bring both disciplines closer to one another. In this respect, organisations such as the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) have undertaken valuable actions. From a legal perspective, both legislators and courts have attempted to facilitate the cross-border exchange of forensic evidence. Whereas the legislator did so by adopting legal acts, providing for the admission of forensic evidence from foreign jurisdictions, courts within several common law jurisdictions developed criteria to determine the acceptability of such evidence. Even though these initiatives should be applauded, a firmer and less fragmented approach is necessary in the future.

Abstract

It must be said that Tyndall could not more eloquently express the importance of looking beyond one’s own borders and pushing the boundaries which are thereby revealed. The statement of the scientist should be kept in mind in as many contexts as possible. With regard to the very specific context of evidence acceptance, two boundaries seem to be-or require to be-pushed. On the one hand, despite the fact that law has often been considered a ‘soft science’, law and science tend rather to be positioned at the opposite sides of almost every spectrum. Several efforts have already been made to bring both disciplines closer to one another. In this respect, organisations such as the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) and the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) have undertaken valuable actions. From a legal perspective, both legislators and courts have attempted to facilitate the cross-border exchange of forensic evidence. Whereas the legislator did so by adopting legal acts, providing for the admission of forensic evidence from foreign jurisdictions, courts within several common law jurisdictions developed criteria to determine the acceptability of such evidence. Even though these initiatives should be applauded, a firmer and less fragmented approach is necessary in the future.
Share