R v Adams
Ruling which criticised the use of Bayesian statistics in determining guilt / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about R v Adams?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
For the 1957 case, upheld in Bland, that allows a doctor to hasten death with a drug if primary intention is properly the ease of suffering, see R v Adams (1957).
R v Adams [1996] EWCA Crim 10 and 222, are rulings in the United Kingdom that banned the expression in court of headline (soundbite), standalone Bayesian statistics from the reasoning admissible before a jury in DNA evidence cases, in favour of the calculated average (and maximal) number of matching incidences among the nation's population. The facts involved strong but inconclusive evidence conflicting with the DNA evidence, leading to a retrial.
Quick Facts R v Adams, Court ...
R v Adams | |
---|---|
Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
Full case name | Regina v. Denis John Adams |
Decided | April 26, 1996 (1996-04-26) |
Citation(s) | [1996] EWCA Crim 10 [1996] EWCA Crim 222 2 Cr App R 467 [1996] Crim LR 898, CA [1998] 1 Cr App R 377 The Times, 3 November 1997 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Trial with conviction by jury |
Appealed from | Central Criminal Court |
Subsequent action(s) | Retrial by a properly-directed jury as to DNA evidence |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Rose LJ, Hidden J, Buxton J |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Rose LJ |
Keywords | |
DNA evidence |
Close