Truth and Politics: Thinking About Evidence‐Based Policy in the Age Of Spin

Evidence‐based policy and the contemporary politics of spin are said to characterise contemporary politics and policy. The paper asks firstly what sense is to be made of this coincidence, and then documents this coincidence. It then asks how credible is the conception of ‘evidence’ espoused by advocates of evidence‐based policy when it is conventionally represented as an ‘objective’ counter to ideology, spin or opinion? It points to major problems with the conventional understandings of ‘evidence’. It is suggested that while the evidence‐based policy literature relies on the associations ‘evidence’ is presumed to have with ‘sensory data’, this is neither the case nor all that defensible. The paper reprises arguments advanced by Henry Mayer and Hannah Arendt that the relationship of politics to the empirical was and is a far more complex relationship than is conventionally understood to be the case.     

公诉案件庭审中非法证据排除程序酌实践与思考

对于庭审中提出非法证据排除申请的,相关证据展示、交换和对证据收集合法性的证明。拟通过休庭方式在庭下进行,庭上再进行确认或裁定;对于当庭非法证据排除调查不至于造成庭审过分延误的,也可在庭审过程中进行。侦查人员作为“程序上的被告”出庭说明情况,虽不具备证人身份,但依然可以接受控辩双方的质询,从某种意义上说,是依法辅助公诉人履行控诉职责的职务行为。     

论专家辅助人意见——以刑事辩护为视角的分析

我国2012年新《刑事诉讼法》首次设立了专家辅助人制度，对鉴定意见的质证提供了技术上的支持，对于刑事辩护来说意义重大。从证据法的角度看来，专家辅助人意见具有言词证据、意见证据、弹劾证据的多重属性，因此意见的内容应围绕鉴定意见中的专门性问题，并结合《刑事诉讼法》及相关司法解释对鉴定意见的审查判断规则来提出；而法庭对于鉴定意见的审查也应从准入资格与可靠性两方面进行，以免专家辅助人意见替代鉴定意见来主导审判。     

同步录音录像制度运行中的若干问题探析-以福建省职务犯罪案件为观察对象

我国法律没有规定刑事案件侦查讯问时同步录音录像的性质，所以对于同步录音的认识不一。这种情况已经对同步录音录像的规范运用产生重要的影响。基于实证调研的数据，可以对同步录音录像制度在实务中的运行状况、程序规范、存在的问题、同步录音录像的实务运用与效用进行全面的梳理。在此基础上，对同步录音录像性质与定位的争议等问题进行了回应。同步录音录像可作为侦查讯问行为合法性证据和口供补强证据，但一般情况下不能作为案件实体事实的证据。     

被害人陈述之比较研究

被害人陈述作为我国一类独立的刑事证据 ,它与美国被害人影响陈述截然不同 ,也与犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和辩解及证人证言存在着程度不同的差异。对它们进行比较研究 ,既有利于正确揭示被害人陈述的特征 ,合理界定它在未来刑事证据立法中的地位 ,也可以借鉴美国被害人影响陈述制度 ,加强我国刑事诉讼中的被害人人权保障。     

民事诉讼中当事人商定举证期限与法院指定举证期限之应然关系

确定一个合理的举证期限既是科学设置举证时限制度的必备内容,也是其得以良性运作的重要前提。对于举证期限的确定,有关司法解释虽然明确了当事人商定和法院指定两种不同的方式,但却没有能够作出细致的规制。鉴于此,本文分析了有关规定在司法实践中存在的主要问题,检讨了当事人商定举证期限和法院指定举证期限各自的利弊得失,并在此基础上为进一步理顺二者之间的应然关系提出了完善建议。     

The curious case of Housing First: the limits of evidence based policy

Evidence Based Policy has been articulated and practiced in Europe, particularly under the ‘New Labour’ policies of the former Labour government in the United Kingdom. In the United States, the impact of research on policy has been inconsistent due to differing relationships between researchers and policy makers. This paper gives an overview of evidence based policy and presents critiques based on its reliance on positivist methods and technical approach to policy making. Using these critiques as a framework, the paper discusses the case of Housing First, a policy adopted by the Bush Administration in order to address the problem of chronic homelessness. The case is an example of research driven policy making but also resulted in a progressive policy being promoted by a conservative administration. In discussing the case, the paper elaborates on the relationship between evidence and policy, arguing that evidence based policy fails to integrate evidence and values into policy deliberations. The paper concludes with alternative models of policy decision making and their implications for research.     

An overview of EU data protection rules on use of data collected online

In the third of our series of articles considering the EU’s limited harmonisation of the laws regulating the activities of businesses using the Internet, we look at EU rules on the use of data collected online. We consider the principles governing the processing of personal data collected online. We then discuss the new rules on the use of cookies and the practical difficulties facing website operators in complying with them and conclude with a brief overview of the rules governing the transfer of personal data outside the EEA.     

Hearsay and Human Rights: Al‐Khawaja in the Grand Chamber

This note analyses the European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber judgment in Al‐Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom, and gives it a cautious welcome. The note suggests how English Courts might respond to the judgment and concludes by assessing justifications for strong confrontation rights and the wider political context of the Grand Chamber's decision.