DOCSLIB.ORG

Legal Obligations: Issue 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legal Obligations: Issue 8 Information Legal Obligations FSR-I-400 Issue 8 © Crown Copyright 2020 The text in this document (excluding the Forensic Science Regulator’s logo and material quoted from other sources) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown Copyright and its title specified. Forensic Science Regulator INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION - INFORMATION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 7 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Expert Evidence .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Basic Condition .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Obligations .......................................................................................................................................... 7 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 14 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3 Citation .............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Scope ................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.5 Reservation ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3. MODIFICATION ......................................................................................................... 17 4. KEY JUDICIAL GUIDANCE ....................................................................................... 18 4.1 The Ikarian Reefer (1993; High Court - Cresswell J) ..................................................................... 18 4.2 R v. Harris & Ors. (2005; CA Crim Div) ........................................................................................... 19 4.3 R v. Bowman (2006; CA Crim Div) .................................................................................................. 20 4.4 Codification of the Guidance ........................................................................................................... 22 4.5 Tribunal Guidance ............................................................................................................................ 22 5. THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS ................................................................... 26 5.1 Overriding Objective ........................................................................................................................ 26 5.2 Case Management ............................................................................................................................ 29 5.3 Expert Evidence ................................................................................................................................ 30 5.4 Professional Witnesses ................................................................................................................... 32 5.5 Objectivity and Impartiality .............................................................................................................. 33 5.6 Honesty and Good Faith .................................................................................................................. 43 5.7 Reasonable Skill and Care ............................................................................................................... 46 5.8 Clarity ................................................................................................................................................. 50 FSR-I-400 Issue 8 Page 2 of 183 Forensic Science Regulator INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION - INFORMATION 5.9 Provision of Scientific Criteria ........................................................................................................ 50 5.10 Disclosure of Hypothesis and its Status ........................................................................................ 54 5.11 Preservation and Disclosure of Relevant Material and Facts ...................................................... 55 5.12 Role on Appeal .................................................................................................................................. 55 6. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE & PRESERVATION ........................................................... 55 6.2 Expert’s Personal Duty in Common Law ....................................................................................... 55 6.3 Disclosure of Underlying Data with Report ................................................................................... 59 6.4 Expert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role to Retain, Record and Reveal ........................................................... 59 6.5 Manner of Disclosure ....................................................................................................................... 62 6.6 The Defence ...................................................................................................................................... 64 7. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ...................................................... 65 7.1 General Admissibility of Evidence .................................................................................................. 65 7.2 Admissibility of Expert Evidence .................................................................................................... 67 7.3 Law Commission .............................................................................................................................. 79 7.4 Accreditation ..................................................................................................................................... 80 7.5 Quality Standards ............................................................................................................................. 81 7.6 Validation ........................................................................................................................................... 82 7.7 Registration ....................................................................................................................................... 85 7.8 Work of Others Admissible in Informing Opinion on Primary Facts .......................................... 85 7.9 Bayesian Statistics ........................................................................................................................... 89 7.10 Future Research and Developing Areas ........................................................................................ 96 7.11 Degrees of Support .......................................................................................................................... 99 7.12 Enumeration of Range of Possible Explanations for Particular Events ................................... 101 7.13 No Closed Categories of Expert Evidence ................................................................................... 102 7.14 The Ultimate Issue for the Court ................................................................................................... 103 7.15 Conflict of Interest .......................................................................................................................... 105 7.16 Compromising Admissibility ......................................................................................................... 106 7.17 Disclosure ....................................................................................................................................... 106 FSR-I-400 Issue 8 Page 3 of 183 Forensic Science Regulator INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION – INFORMATION - INFORMATION 7.18 Restrictions on Content ................................................................................................................. 109 8. FORM OF WRITTEN EXPERT EVIDENCE: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 110 8.1 Forms of Written Evidence ............................................................................................................ 110 8.2 Scope of Requirement.................................................................................................................... 111 8.3 Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................. 111 8.4 Application of CrimPR 19 .............................................................................................................. 112 8.5 Requirements of CrimPR 19.2 ....................................................................................................... 113 8.6 Requirements in CrimPR 19.4 ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence an Educational Module
    Forensic Pattern Recognition Evidence An Educational Module Prepared by Simon A. Cole Professor, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society Director, Newkirk Center for Science and Society University of California, Irvine Alyse Berthental PhD Candidate, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society University of California, Irvine Jaclyn Seelagy Scholar, PULSE (Program on Understanding Law, Science, and Evidence) University of California, Los Angeles School of Law For Committee on Preparing the Next Generation of Policy Makers for Science-Based Decisions Committee on Science, Technology, and Law June 2016 The copyright in this module is owned by the authors of the module, and may be used subject to the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License. By using or further adapting the educational module, you agree to comply with the terms of the license. The educational module is solely the product of the authors and others that have added modifications and is not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the sponsors of this activity. Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals and Methods ..................................................................................................................... 1 Audience .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Canliidocs 305 Decisions
    BEATTY, J.F., AND THE LAW OF MANSLAUGHTER 651 BEATTY, J.F., AND THE LAW OF MANSLAUGHTER LARRY C. WILSON* In this article, the author argues that the recent Dans cet article, l’auteur fait valoir que les récentes Supreme Court of Canada decisions in R. v. Beatty décisions de la Cour suprême du Canada, notamment and R. v. J.F. have clarified several of the issues that R. c. Beatty et R. c. J.F., ont clarifié plusieurs have plagued the increasingly complicated offence of questions qui tourmentent l’homicide involontaire manslaughter. In particular, the decisions address the coupable, infraction de plus en plus compliquée. Les redundancy among the many manslaughter provisions décisions abordent tout spécialement la redondance in the Criminal Code, the need to define a clear des nombreuses dispositions relatives à l’homicide separation between actus reus and mens rea, and the involontaire coupable du Code criminel, le besoin de need to establish distinct categories of objective fault préciser une séparation claire entre actus reus et mens for different types of manslaughter offences. The rea, et le besoin d’établir des catégories distinctes de author examines the legal background of these faute objective pour différents types d’homicides decisions as well as the current state of the law. He involontaires coupables. L’auteur examine le contexte concludes by identifying emerging issues relating to juridique de ces décisions ainsi que l’état actuel de la the offence of manslaughter, arguing that the law loi. Il termine en identifiant les enjeux émergents remains convoluted and in need of urgent reform relatifs à ce crime en faisant valoir que la loi demeure despite the progress made in the Beatty and J.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Costs in Criminal Cases
    For the Legal Aid Commission Conference Winter 2012 COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES Presented by Luke Brasch Samuel Griffith Chambers © COPYRIGHT Luke Brasch 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter 4 Costs in Criminal Cases Introduction 5 Background and History 6 The Common Law 6 Effect of statutory provisions 7 Latoudis v Casey 10 Power to award costs must be conferred by statute 13 PART ONE Criminal Procedure Act 1986 15 Matter is Withdrawn or Information is invalid 16 When to make the Application 17 Costs on AdJournment 19 Limits on the Awarding of Costs 20 Connection Between the Reasons for Dismissal and the Cost Order 21 The Onus of Proof 22 The Prosecutor 22 The Four Criteria Limiting the Awarding of Costs 23 Judicial Discretion 33 Costs awarded to be “Just and Reasonable” 35 Two Counsel 40 Reducing Costs Due to Defence Conduct 42 Costs of a Previously Aborted Hearing 42 Appeals against Court Orders 43 Legal Aid 43 PART TWO The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 45 An Overview 45 When can a Certificate be Granted? 47 Page | 1 Costs in Criminal Cases A Certificate cannot be given in respect of Commonwealth Offences 47 Legal Aid 47 Section 2 Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 47 Trials-Section 2 (1)(a) 49 A Trial Must Have Commenced 49 What is a trial? 50 A committal is not a trial 50 When does a trial commence? 51 Proceedings must have concluded favourably to the defendant 52 Appeals Section 2(1)(B) 52 What must the Court be satisfied of the grant the Certificate? 53 Section 3- An Overview 53 The relevant facts and Section 3A(1) 54 “Before the
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 Reference Guide on Dna Identification
    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Third Edition) Chapter 15 CHAPTER 15 REFERENCE GUIDE ON DNA IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE DAVID H. KAYE AND GEORGE SENSABAUGH David H. Kaye, M.A., J.D., is Distinguished Professor of Law, Weiss Family Scholar, and Graduate Faculty Member, Forensic Science Program, Eberly College of Science, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, and Regents’ Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and School of Life Sciences, Tempe. George Sensabaugh, D. Crim., is Professor of Biomedical and Forensic Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. © 2009 D.H. Kaye and G. Sensabaugh. This chapter of the third edition of the Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence was submitted to the National Academy of Sciences in 2009 and revised in response to comments from NAS reviewers in October 2010. Contents I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2 A. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................3 B. A BRIEF HISTORY OF DNA EVIDENCE ....................................................................................4 C. RELEVANT EXPERTISE ............................................................................................................6 II. VARIATION IN HUMAN DNA AND ITS DETECTION....................................................8 A. WHAT ARE DNA,
    [Show full text]
  • JTRI Journal, Which Inter Alia Contains Its Annual Report of the Year 2011-2012
    SPECIAL FEATURE ISSN No 0976-9153 ANNUAL REPORT SEVENTEENTH YEAR 2011-2012 Issue XXXIII December, 2012 J T R I J O U R N A L Judicial Training & Research Institute, U.P. Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court 2 JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD. CHIEF JUSTICE MESSAGE I am happy to learn that the Institute of Judicial Training and Research, U.P. is going to publish XXXIII issue of its Journal containing annual report about the activities and achievements of the Institute and various articles on legal and constitutional topics written by Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, eminent Jurists, Lawyers, Law Professors and students of law. The Journal will give the Judges of Subordinate Judiciary a forum to express themselves on various subjects of law and humanity. I am sure that the Journal will prove beneficial for the Judicial Officers of the State. I congratulate the Director and other officers of the Institute for regular publication of the Journal. My best wishes go to the Judicial Officers of the State and the Institute for all success in future. (Shiva Kirti Singh) 3 HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI Senior Judge, Allahabad High Court 4 JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI Senior Judge 5 HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH Senior Judge, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow-Bench 6 JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH High Court SENIOR JUDGE Allahabad Lucknow Bench MESSAGE I am delighted to learn that the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh is going to publish 33rd issue of JTRI Journal, which inter alia contains its Annual Report of the year 2011-2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Attempts 46 Chapter 7— Conspiracy 49 Chapter 8— Joint Enterprise 55 1
    II CRIMINAL BENCH BOOK © Judicial Education Institute of Trinidad and Tobago, 2015 All rights reserved. Except for use in review, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me- chanical, including photocopy, recording, any information storage or retrieval system, or on the internet, without permission in writing from the publishers. Design and Artwork: Paria Publishing Company Limited Typeset in Scala Printed by The Office Authority ISBN 978-976-8255-20-4 (printed book) ISBN 978-976-8255-21-1 (e-book) 2015 SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CRIMINAL BENCH BOOK III THE BOARD OF THE JUDICIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (2015) The Honourable The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Ivor Archie, ORTT— President The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Jamadar, JA— Chairman Justice Roger Hamel-Smith (Ret.)— Programme Director The Honourable Mme Justice Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, JA The Honourable Mme Justice Charmaine Pemberton The Honourable Mme Justice Carla Brown-Antoine The Honourable Mme Justice Andrea Smart Chief Magistrate Her Worship Mrs Marcia Ayers-Caesar Her Worship Magistrate Ms Avason Quinlan Ms Jade Rodriguez— Registrar of the High Court Ms Michelle Austin— Court Executive Administrator Ms Carol Ford-Nunes— Director of Court Library Services Mr Kent Jardine— Judicial Educator Mrs Samantha Forde— Coordinator, JEITT THE BENCH BOOK COMMITTEE The Honourable Mme Justice Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, JA— Chairperson The Honourable Mr Justice Mark Mohammed, JA— Co-Chairperson Ms
    [Show full text]
  • Gary Edmond,* Simon Cole,† Emma Cunliffe,‡ and Andrew Roberts§
    ADMISSIBILITY COMPARED: THE RECEPTION OF INCRIMINATING EXPERT EVIDENCE (I.E., FORENSIC SCIENCE) IN FOUR ADVERSARIAL JURISDICTIONS Gary Edmond,* Simon Cole,† Emma Cunliffe,‡ and Andrew Roberts§ INTRODUCTION The single most important observation about judicial [gate-keeping] of forensic science is that most judges under most circumstances admit most forensic science. There is almost no expert testimony so threadbare that it will not be admitted if it comes to a criminal proceeding under the banner of forensic science. The applicable legal test offers little assurance. The maverick who is a field unto him- or herself has repeatedly been readily admitted under Frye, and the complete absence of foundational research has not prevented such admission in Daubert jurisdictions.1 There is an epistemic crisis in many areas of forensic science. This crisis emerged largely in response both to the mobilization of a range of academic commentators and critics and the rise and influence of DNA typing. It gained popular and authoritative support through the influence of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and a surprisingly critical report produced under its auspices by a committee of the National Research Council (NRC). Interestingly, as this article endeavors to explain, the courts themselves seem to have played a rather indirect, inconsistent and ultimately ineffective role in the supervision and evaluation of forensic science evidence. Indeed, in the * Professor, School of Law, The University of New South Wales. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (FT0992041, LP100200142 and LP120100063). Thanks to David Faigman, Jeremy Gans, Mehera San Roque, and William Thompson for comments. Versions of this paper were presented at Law & Society Conferences in San Francisco (2011) and Hawaii (2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Evidence and the Court of Appeal for England and Wales
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2015 Forensic Evidence and the Court of Appeal for England and Wales Lissa Griffin Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, European Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Lissa Griffin,or F ensic Evidence and the Court of Appeal for England and Wales, 4 Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. 619 (2015), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/1013/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES Professor Lissa Griffin Pace Law School, Pace University ABSTRACT The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal has extensively analyzed the role of forensic evidence. In doing so, the court has grappled with the admissibility and reliability of a broad range of forensic evidence, from DNA and computer forensics to medical and psychological proof, to more outlying subjects like facial mapping, fiber analysis, or voice identification. The court has analyzed these sub- jects from two perspectives: the admissibility of such evidence in the lower courts and the admissibility of such evidence as fresh evidence on appeal. In both con- texts, the court has taken a practical approach to admitting forensic proof that is deemed to be helpful and reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Issue
    CURRENT ISSUE NEED FOR CAUTION IN THE USE OF DNA EVIDENCE TO AVOID CONVICTING THE INNOCENT CURRENT ISSUE The need for caution in the use of DNA evidence to avoid convicting the innocent By Michael Naughton* and Senior Lecturer, School of Law and School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), University of Bristol Gabe Tan** Research Assistant, School of Law, University of Bristol Keywords DNA evidence; Low Copy Number; Partial DNA profiles; Mixed DNA profiles eoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiles are obtained in forensic analyses by the identification of variations (known as alleles) within specific regions D known as ‘loci’ (s.locus) within the human genome, which are then added to, or checked against profiles already on, the National DNA Database (NDNAD).1 In the early years of the establishment of the NDNAD, a DNA profiling system known as Second Generation Multiplex (SGM) was used which measured six different Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci to yield a DNA profile. This method of * Email: [email protected]. ** Email: [email protected]. This article is an outgrowth of a paper that we presented at the Human Rights and Forensic Science Conference, co-hosted by the Irish Centre for Human Rights and the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification, National University of Ireland, Galway, 24–25 April 2009. We are grateful for the feedback that we received at the session. We would also like to thank Allan Jamieson, Jenny McEwan and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback too. 1 Human Genome Project Information ‘DNA Forensics’ (2009), available at <http://www.ornl.gov/ sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml>, accessed 4 May 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Comments
    Cornell Law Review Volume 27 Article 10 Issue 3 April 1942 Notes and Comments Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notes and Comments, 27 Cornell L. Rev. 395 (1942) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol27/iss3/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS Constitutional Law: Partial unconstitutionality: Unconstitutional appli- cation of statutes.- Borchert v. City of Ranger, 42 F. Supp. 577 (N. D. Tex. 1941), though not a leading case, raises an interesting problem. Jeho- vah's Witnesses sued to enjoin future prosecutions for violation of ordinances which forbade all peddling without a license from certain officials. The court granted the injunction on the ground that the ordinances violated the Four- teenth Amendment, but it is not the purpose here to discuss the substantive law of this case or of any case mentioned. judge Wilson raised the problem to be dealt with here when he said,' "I am not holding that these ordinances of the various defendant cities are invalid. They may be perfectly valid and enforceable against certain activities that may be carried on in their midst. * . I am holding as to these plaintiffs, there was an unconstitutional appli- cation of these ordinances to them." The question of whether a statute which will be unconstitutional when applied to a certain set of facts but constitutional when applied to others, should be declared totally void or whether it should be upheld as far as pos- sible, has received a rather confusing treatment at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States, perhaps because this question in most cases has been incidental to the decision of the major issue in the specific case under consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering Costs in Criminal Matters
    For the Legal Aid Commission Conference Winter 2012 COSTS IN CRMINAL CASES Presented by Luke Brasch Samuel Griffith Chambers © COPYRIGHT Luke Brasch 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenter 4 Costs in Criminal Cases Introduction 5 Background and History 6 The Common Law 6 Effect of statutory provisions 7 Latoudis v Casey 10 Power to award costs must be conferred by statute 13 PART ONE Criminal Procedure Act 1986 15 Matter is Withdrawn or Information is invalid 16 When to make the Application 17 Costs on AdJournment 19 Limits on the Awarding of Costs 20 Connection Between the Reasons for Dismissal and the Cost Order 21 The Onus of Proof 22 The Prosecutor 22 The Four Criteria Limiting the Awarding of Costs 23 Judicial Discretion 33 Costs awarded to be “Just and Reasonable” 35 Two Counsel 40 Reducing Costs Due to Defence Conduct 42 Costs of a Previously Aborted Hearing 42 Appeals against Court Orders 43 Legal Aid 43 PART TWO The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 45 An Overview 45 When can a Certificate be Granted? 47 Page | 1 Costs in Criminal Cases A Certificate cannot be given in respect of Commonwealth Offences 47 Legal Aid 47 Section 2 Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 47 Trials-Section 2 (1)(a) 49 A Trial Must Have Commenced 49 What is a trial? 50 A committal is not a trial 50 When does a trial commence? 51 Proceedings must have concluded favourably to the defendant 52 Appeals Section 2(1)(B) 52 What must the Court be satisfied of the grant the Certificate? 53 Section 3- An Overview 53 The relevant facts and Section 3A(1) 54 “Before the proceedings
    [Show full text]
  • The War on Obscenity and the Death of Doctrinal Purity*
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 3 Volume 25, Number 2 (Summer 1987) News from the Front--The aW r on Obscenity and the Death of Doctrinal Purity Alan Young Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Article Citation Information Young, Alan. "News from the Front--The aW r on Obscenity and the Death of Doctrinal Purity." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 25.2 (1987) : 305-374. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol25/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. NEWS FROM THE FRONT - THE WAR ON OBSCENITY AND THE DEATH OF DOCTRINAL PURITY* BY ALAN YOUNG" I. INTRODUCTION ................... ....... 306 A. The Strategic Defence Initiative ....... ....... 308 II. THE HARM PRINCIPLE AS A LIMITING PRINCIPLE ...................... .. 316 A. The Community Standards Test as a Proxy for Harm ...................... 320 B. The Battle of Sakura .............. 331 C. The Decision in Metro News ......... 337 III. STRICT LIABILITY .................. .. 341 IV. MISTAKE OF LAW .................. 351 V. OFFICIALLY-INDUCED ERROR ........ 362 VI. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ........ 367 Copyright, Alan Young, 1987. Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 25 NO. 2 L INTRODUCTION In many parts of the world human life is sacrificed daily in never-ending wars. In North America we have been fortunate to escape the horrors of armed conflict, but here we fight another war.
    [Show full text]