This Appeal case involved,

"The extent to which evaluative expert evidence on footwear marks is reliable and the way in which it was put before the jury. …

The appeal raised an issue of some importance in relation to the use of likelihood ratios in the provision of an evaluative opinion where the statistical data available were uncertain and incomplete."

It has important repercussions for a number of issues including policy and practice in UK forensic science.

We (TFI) had examined all of the evidence in this case, including the case files created in the assessment and analysis of the footwear marks. The Appellant’s case was presented by Mr James Wood QC who had extensive discussions with Professor Jamieson. The served scientific statements were prepared by Professor Jamieson who did not give evidence at the Appeal; only evidence from the Crown was actually heard.

Click here for the pdf file with our commentary on the case (will open in a new window)