The Digital Economy Act 2010: subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR

This paper critically assesses the compatibility of s3 Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Ofcom’s Initial Obligations and two UK cases, namely: British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,¹1 British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).View all notes and R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others.²2 R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others [2012] EWCA Civ 232.View all notes It argues that the implementation of this obligation allows directed surveillance of subscribers’ activities without legal authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It also analyses compliance with the Strasbourg Court’s three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether s3 of the DEA is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that unless the implementation of s3 of the DEA required the involvement of State authorities and was specifically targeted at serious, commercial scale online copyright infringement cases it could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thereby violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights.     

徜徉于哲学与法学之间-“事实与证据：哲学与法学的对话”国际研讨会综述

近年来,中国证据法学的研究取得了长足的发展。但随着讨论主题范围的日渐扩展以及程度的不断加深,证据法学研究中的许多问题越来越难以通过法学这一单一学科予以解决,急需与其他学科的学者进行对话,在这一背景之下,“事实与证据：哲学与法学的对话”国际研讨会在华东师范大学顺利召开。围绕“如何运用证据认定事实”这一问题,本次研讨会从“证据”和“事实”的基本含义及其相互关系、“司法认识论”、“事实认定的规则与方法”、“司法证明的标准”、“概率与证明”等五个方面进行了精彩的观点交换与交锋,在讨论中各位学者既达成了一些基本共识,也引出了许多有待深入研讨的话题。     

“民事证据裁判原则”辨识

证据裁判原则是刑事诉讼法中的一项原则。受刑事诉讼法理论的影响,证据裁判原则也在民事诉讼中被人们所提及。但基于民事诉讼的特定语境——民事纠纷性质、实体法属性、纠纷当事人关系、民事诉讼规范体系的特定性,证据裁判规范的要求就具有了与刑事诉讼法不同的意义和价值。其例外情形、原因及发生机理也有所不同。基于民事案件事实揭示的机理和民事诉讼法强调"谁主张谁举证"的举证要求,在民事诉讼中,证据裁判作为原则的意义和地位远不如刑事诉讼。对于如何认识证据裁判的规范地位和意义,无论是民事证据规范文本的规定,还是人们对例外情形的认识,都存在着一些误识。误识的主要原因是脱离了民事纠纷的特性,按照公法思维而非私法思维去认识证据裁判的意义。文章就此进行了澄清和辨析。在民事诉讼中,对于事实认定而言,更重要的是自由心证原则。     

The forensic examination of structural fires in Victoria,Australia: Decision-making processes and impact on judicial outcomes

There is a body of published research that has evaluated the contribution of forensic science to the criminal justice system, but many disciplines of forensic science remain unexplored in this regard. The aim of this study was to examine the contribution that forensic fire examination services provide to criminal investigations and court processes in arson cases. Forensic fire examination services differ in a number of ways to the disciplines covered in previous research on the impact of forensic evidence on justice outcomes. Forensic fire examinations involve a combination of scene examination and laboratory analyses, and the results can provide critical evidence of whether an incident that has occurred is a criminal offence (i.e. whether a fire has occurred as the result of an act of arson). Forensic fire examination is also a discipline that has faced challenges and undergone development in recent decades regarding its scientific basis and the issue of contextual bias. In this study, data were collated for 273 structural fires that were examined by the forensic fire services in Victoria, Australia. In this jurisdiction, scene and laboratory forensic services are delivered within short time frames with a focus on providing impartial scientific and investigative services to assist criminal investigations conducted by police. The current dataset was highly skewed in terms of criminal justice outcomes and was not suitable for conducting the planned statistical analyses. Nonetheless, the pattern of findings obtained suggested that the inclusion of forensic evidence which supported the prosecution of arson may be associated with an increased likelihood of suspects being charged and defendants found guilty. Examination of the decision-making process of the forensic fire examiners has provided insight into the variety of evidence that is considered by forensic experts in reaching the important conclusion about the origin and cause of structural fires.     

The different types of reports produced in digital forensic investigations

The importance of ensuring the results of any digital forensic (DF) examination are effectively communicated cannot be understated. In most cases, this communication will be done via written report, yet despite this there is arguably limited best practice guidance available which is specific for this field in regards to report construction. Poor reporting practices in DF are likely to undermine the reliability of evidence provided across this field, where there is a need for formalised guidance regarding the requirements for effective DF report construction; this should not be a task left solely to each individual practitioner to determine without instruction. For this, the field of DF should look to the wider forensic community and the existing work in this area for support. In line with many other ‘traditional’ forensic science types, a DF practitioner can be commissioned to report in one of three ways - ‘technical’, ‘investigative’ or ‘evaluative’, where each reporting type maintains a specific purpose and interpretative-context, determined by the examination workflow undertaken by a practitioner following client instruction. This work draws upon guidance set out in fundamental forensic science reporting literature in order to describe each reporting type in turn, outlining their scope, content and construction requirements in an attempt to provide support for the DF field.     

Relatively Permanent Pigmented or Vascular Skin Marks for Identification: A Pilot Reliability Study

In child sexual exploitation offenses, the collected evidence images often show the skin of nonfacial body parts of the criminals and victims. For identification in this scenario, “relatively permanent pigmented or vascular skin marks,” abbreviated as RPPVSM, were recently introduced as the basis for a novel biometric trait. This pilot study evaluated the interexaminer variability of RPPVSM identification. Four dermatology physicians were recruited to examine RPPVSM from 75 skin images collected from a total of 51 Caucasian and Asian subjects. The images were separated into 50 reference (“suspect”) images and 25 evaluation (“evidence”) images. The examiners were asked to perform identification by annotating RPPVSM in each of the 25 evaluation images and matching them with the reference images. The rate of misidentification was 0% while the mean rate at which examiners failed to find a match was 6%, indicating the potential of dermatology physicians performing the role of RPPVSM examiners.     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

Bloodstain pattern analysis & Bayes: A case report

The findings from a bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) may assist in formulating or falsifying scenarios that are considered in the investigative stages of a criminal investigation. When a case proceeds to trial the bloodstain pattern expert may be asked about the relevance of their findings given scenarios that are proposed by the prosecution and defense counsel. Such opinions provided by an expert are highly relevant to police investigation or legal proceedings, but the reasoning behind the opinion or implicit assumptions made by the expert may not be transparent.A proper framework for the evaluation of forensic findings has been developed since the late twentieth century, based on the hierarchy of propositions, Bayesian reasoning and a model for case assessment and interpretation. This framework, when implemented in casework, mitigates some of the risks of cognitive biases, and makes the reasoning and scientific basis for the opinion transparent. This framework is broadly used across forensic science disciplines. In this paper we describe its application to the field of BPA using a case example from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).     

关于传闻证据规则可采性的思考

传闻证据规则是英美法系证据法中一个十分重要的证据规则。它是采取刑事诉讼对抗制模式和陪审团制度的产物,随着司法实践的不断复杂化,传闻证据规则例外的情形也变得繁多和复杂,传闻证据规则运用的空间变小了。引进传闻证据规则意味着否定我国的传来证据规则,同时,英美的传闻证据规则与我国的刑事诉讼程序背号和诉讼模式不相适应,所以,我国不宜引进英美法系的传闻证据规则。