This book examines the legal and moral theory behind the law of evidence and proof, arguing that only by exploring the nature of responsibility in fact-finding can the role and purpose of much of the law be fully understood. Ho argues that the court must not only find the truth to do justice, it must do justice in finding the truth.

Philosophical Issues, Volume 31, Issue 1, Page 146-166, October 2021.

This book explores the relevance of virtue theory to law from a variety of perspectives. The concept of virtue is central in both contemporary ethics and epistemology. In contrast, in law, there has not been a comparable trend toward explaining normativity on the model of virtue theory. In the last few years, however, there has been an increasing interest in virtue theory among legal scholars. 'Virtue jurisprudence' has emerged as a serious candidate for a theory of law and adjudication. Advocates (...) of virtue jurisprudence put primary emphasis on aretaic concepts rather than on duties or consequences. Aretaic concepts are, on this view, crucial for explaining law and adjudication. This book is a collection of essays examining the role of virtue in general jurisprudence as well as in specific areas of the law. Part I puts together a number of papers discussing various philosophical aspects of an approach to law and adjudication based on the virtues. Part II discusses the relationship between law, virtue and character development, with some of the essays selected analysing this relationship by combining both eastern perspectives on virtue and character with western approaches. Parts III and IV examine problems of substantive areas of law, more specifically, criminal law and evidence law, from within a virtue-based framework. Last, Part V discusses the relevance of empathy to our understanding of justice and legal morality. (shrink)

A deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, allows a corporation, instead of proceeding to trial on a criminal charge, to settle matters with the state by acknowledging the facts on which any charge would be based, pay a reduced fine, and agree to change the way they conduct business. Critics of DPAs have suggested that, because the defendant corporation must pay a fine and submit to structural reform without having been found guilty at trial, DPAs violate the Presumption of Innocence. This (...) paper argues that they do not. The paper appeals to the role of civic trust in a liberal political community. The obligations a corporation assumes in a DPA can be framed as a reasonable retributive response to a breach by that corporation of the community’s laws, and an appropriate reassurance by that corporation to the community that such breaches will not reoccur. This framing is sufficient to deny that DPAs violate the Presumption of Innocence. (shrink)

If the criminal trial is aimed simply at ascertaining the truth of a criminal charge, it is inherently problematic to prevent the prosecution from adducing relevant evidence on the ground of its unlawful provenance. This article challenges the starting premise by replacing the epistemic focus with a political perspective. It offers a normative justification for the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence that is rooted in a theory of the criminal trial as a process of holding the executive to the rule (...) of law. On this theory, it is the admission rather than exclusion of such evidence that is inherently problematic. The differences between this theory and others that are in currency will be noted, as will its implications and limitations. (shrink)

This article attempts to construct a theory of the common law hearsay rule. The hope is to expose the values which it embodies. The theory will explain the role of the rule in the inferential process and will try to justify its operation. The rule is commonly analysed in terms of 'reliability'. But it will be argued in this article that the hearsay rule is more correctly seen as being based on two related conceptions of fairness. The rule seeks to (...) avoid, first, the unfairness to the opponent of assuming that the absent declarant would have come up to proof if she had testified, and, secondly, the unfairness of prejudicing the opponent by the production of evidence without giving her the opportunity to erase that prejudice. The implications of the theory will be explored. The article will discuss what the law on hearsay evidence ought to be on the present theory. (shrink)

This essay evaluates the recent restatement in O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police of the law on similar facts in civil proceedings. The two-stage approach propounded in O’Brien contains a number of conceptual problems. Apparent simplicity was achieved by avoiding fundamental issues underlying this area. Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, judges recognized that the common law similar facts rule had a role to play in both civil and criminal trials; but they gave the rule a wider (...) exclusionary scope in criminal than in civil cases. Adoption of a moral perspective helps to explain this state of affairs. The rule, so it will be argued, protects the legitimacy of trial deliberation by forbidding reliance on an assumption that disrespects the moral autonomy of the person whose conduct is being judged. This moral objection can arise in civil cases; but it arises more frequently and usually with greater force in criminal proceedings. Hence, while there is a need to reserve some judicial power to disallow proof of similar incidents in the civil context, there is usually less reason for the exercise of that power in civil cases than at criminal trials. (shrink)