Calibrating the right to confrontation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596198 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Liz Heffernan (Trinity College Dublin, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 103-111 |
| Publication date | 2016-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712716631761 |
| OpenAlex | W2344669325 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 8 |
In ‘Confronting Confrontation’, published in 2012, Professor Mike Redmayne elucidated a critique of the relatively strong confrontation rights embedded in the US constitutional and ECHR traditions. He argued in favour of an alternative, more narrow conceptualisation of confrontation as the positive right of an accused to cross-examine available witnesses. Drawing on some of the threads stitched in ‘Confronting Confrontation’, the present article explores the challenge of applying the ECHR confrontation right in common law courts. Particular emphasis is placed on the need within the Strasbourg doctrine to assess the potential significance of the evidence to the prosecution’s case at trial
Constitutional right · Doctrine · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Sociology · Supreme court · European and International Law Studies · International Law and Human Rights · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.11 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2017 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |