Search

This chapter will examine the problems posed for the law when it faces arguments based on new understandings of behaviour in the courtroom. It will particularly examine the issue of whether the legal conception of how coercion and control may partially excuse those who commit murder as a result of the coercive and controlling behaviour of others with whom they are in intimate relationships. It will examine the distinct approaches taken by the legislature and the courts and ask if more use of expert understandings of behaviour drawing on the cognitive sciences would assist. It is often said that law has a folk psychological understanding of human behaviour; the chapter will consider whether and how the viewpoint of the cognitive sciences might be utilized in the critique of the English law to refocus the “aim” of the law.

The aim of this chapter is to consider how our developing knowledge of cognitive neuroscience may impact upon the criminal justice system. This chapter examines the claims that modern understandings of how the brain drives behaviour, based on new insights from cognitive neuroscience and neurobiology, will challenge certain tenets of the criminal law and the criminal justice system. In doing this it will be useful to examine the work of academic researchers who have been actively carrying out funded research in this area. This will assist in the process of scoping how future advances in our scientific understanding may challenge the criminal law. Additionally, it will be useful to assess the activities of learned societies and governmental bodies in reviewing the area. This will aid an understanding of how to evaluate the way in which academic and government funded research may impact and influence future developments in the criminal justice system.

This chapter examines the claims made by science and technology that have impacted upon criminal law. It looks at issues of legitimacy in criminal law and in particular at claims based upon new scientific and technological explanations of human behaviour. It considers how the criminal law has responded to these challenges. It considers whether there are areas of the criminal law where a greater understanding of the relevant science would assist the criminal justice system. It also looks at the present legal approaches to those issues and considers how the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 may provide a framework for the courts when dealing with science and technology.

This article examines changes to a first year module introduced in response to reviewing research evidence on barriers to student learning. The thinking behind the changes is underpinned by research literature in relation to improving student performance and research evidence in the area of consciousness studies. The evidence from research studies is examined both in terms of the nature of transformative learning and the manner in which learning takes place. The article examines how student learning on the course has improved and poses the question whether assessment for and as learning may have a transformative effect.

The timing of the English Law Commission's consideration of reform to the law of insanity coincides with increasing scientific and in particular neuroscientific understanding of the brain. The work of researchers is leading to a greater comprehension of what had been termed irresistible impulses to commit crime and of the impact of brain damage, particularly evidence of brain lesions and frontal lobe damage on behaviour. There remain problems in establishing causal relationships which might diminish or eliminate criminal responsibility for crimes committed by those suffering from pre existing mental conditions at the time they commit a criminal offence. This is especially the case where those mental conditions are of short duration. However, the law should not ignore the best available scientific knowledge. Neuroscientific advances are already informing court deliberations in England and Wales: assisting in considerations of guilt, fitness to plead and in sentencing. In terms of the insanity defence the questions that the law seeks to address are not necessarily the most medically or scientifically pertinent questions. They remain grounded in 19th century scientific understanding. It is argued that the more nuanced Dutch approach to mental condition defences warrants very serious consideration by those charged with making proposals to reform the English law.

This chapter examines the use of neuroscientific evidence in the courts of England and Wales. It considers the breadth of use which has been made of this evidence. In particular it examines the use of this evidence in cases where the capacity of the legal actor has been questioned. This may apply in evaluations of criminal responsibility and in a civil context in assessing capacity to perform legally meaningful actions such as the making of wills. Consideration is given to what this evidence adds to determinations of whether individuals are in a persistent vegetative state in particular in relation to the withdrawal of treatment. This chapter looks at the use of expert evidence in court and briefly considers proposed changes. Finally the chapter considers how neuroscientific evidence may be used in the future and also whether it has wider application in the criminal and civil justice systems.

On the 25th June 2014 the Supreme Court gave its decision in the case of applications for judicial review of the law relating to assisted suicide. The claim being that the applicants' right to a private and family life was infringed by the present law. The claims were originally made by three men, Tony Nicklinson, Paul Lamb and a man, who to retain anonymity, was simply known as Martin. All three sought to change the law of England and Wales in relation to assisted suicide. The cases arose by way of appeals against the decisions of lower courts. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the present law on assisted suicide contravened the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Additionally it was asked to review the code, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, (DPP) giving advice to those who wished to commit suicide but would need assistance so to do. The code advised those assisting a suicide as to their legal position if they were to assist someone else to die. There was legal argument to the effect that the code lacked certainty particularly where those requested to assist were members of the medical profession.