Criminal Law and Expert Evidence

6 EC

Semester 2, period 5

5274CLEE6Y

Owner Master Forensic Science
Coordinator mr. C. Ganzeboom
Part of Master Forensic Science, year 1

Course manual 2019/2020

Course content

The purpose of the course is to demonstrate the objectives and basic characteristics of substantive and procedural criminal law, the position and functioning of experts in the different stages of the criminal process and the use of expert evidence. The first part of the course will focus on substantive criminal law (which behaviour is considered to be criminal?) and fundamental concepts of criminal law (principle of legality and criminalisation). The second part will focus more on the procedural part of criminal law, i.e. the part that regulates criminal procedure and gives effect to the substantive part of criminal law.

Because students will not have a background in law and be of different nationalities, the course will not focus on a particular legal system, but instead take a more general perspective. The different aspects of a fair trial as guaranteed in the European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights will serve as a framework for discussing the role of forensic experts and their contribution towards judicial fact-finding. The case law of international human rights bodies demonstrates that ultimately the peculiarities of particular legal systems do not detract from the requirements which derive from the concept of a fair trial.

The main objective of the course is to acquire knowledge about the characteristics (basics) of criminal law and of the role of forensic experts – notably in the field of criminal justice – and the contributions they may make towards judicial fact-finding. In each week we will examine the role of the forensic expert with regard to the specific theme. Specifically, the following topics will be examined:

- theories of punishment

substantive criminal law:
- principles of criminalisation
- the principle of legality
- the elements of crime
- intent and recklessness (mens rea)
- justifications and excuses

procedural criminal law:
- criminal investigation
- criminal procedure and the right to a fair trial
- the expert in court and code of conduct
- the law of evidence and illegally gathered evidence

Study materials

Literature

Other

  • Keiler and D. Roef, Comparative concepts of Criminal Law, Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland, Intersentia, 2019 3rd edition

Objectives

  • 1. Demonstrate knowledge of the fundamental principles of criminal law (i.e. theories of punishment, legality and criminalisation
  • 2. Explain the framework of criminal liability and meaning of the elements of crime (actus reus and mens rea) in a comparative manner.
  • 3. Evaluate the following fundamental concepts of substantive criminal law in a comparative manner: intent, recklessness, negligence, attempt, preparation and circumstances excluding criminal liability.
  • 4. Explain the following fundamental concepts of procedural criminal law in a comparative manner: legality, the sword and shield function, the right to a fair trial, basics of the law of evidence and exclusionary rules.
  • 5. Evaluate (an aspect of a) given criminal justice system in light of the right to a fair trial (article 6 ECHR).
  • 6. Critically evaluate the role of the actors (including the expert) in criminal proceedings and their contribution to judicial fact finding.
  • 7. Explain the goal of the NRCE and demonstrate knowledge of the NRCE.
  • 8. Present and explain their scientific findings to members of the criminal justice system in an understandable manner.

Teaching methods

  • Lecture

The course consists of seven two-hour lectures. The objective of this discussion is to reflect on the lecture’s theme, drawing on the required reading and the lecturer’s introduction. In this respect, the students’ knowledge of and experiences with criminal justice in their home countries may be brought to bear not only by way of example but also to demonstrate the difficulties which arise when science and scientists enter the legal arena.

The course is complemented by a Canvas module. This contains contact details of the staff, information on the course and additional materials. Furthermore, it is used to provide up to date information – including last minute changes to the timetable – and to enable discussion among students through a discussion board. Check the announcements page regularly!

Learning activities

Activity

Hours

Tentamen

3

Werkcollege

14

Self study

151

Total

168

(6 EC x 28 uur)

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

There is no compulsory attendance required. However, it is highly recommended to follow the lectures and the practical assignment of week 4 as these cover the material required to study for the exam. Experience from previous years taught us students who did not attend the lectures, failed to achieve high results on the exam.

Assessment

Item and weight Details

Final grade

80%

Tentamen

Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory

20%

Written assigments

Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory

Component 1: Written Assignment - Expert Report (20% of final grade)

Expert reports can be quite short and lacking of background information. The Netherlands Forensic Institute provides information supplements with general information about forensic topics. In these supplements they explain which methods are used and give general background information on that particular forensic field. Students are asked to write such an information supplement on a specific topic that is provided to you. This is an individual assignment. The target audience are members from the judiciary.

 Chain of Evidence

You are asked to write an information supplement on either DNA or glass, however, in each group of the course Chain of Evidence, one student needs to write a report on DNA and one on glass. After handing in your written assignment you are asked to choose one DNA report and one glass report that will be attached to your expert report in Chain of Evidence. This will contribute to the preparation of the non-scientists present during the moot court.

Component 2:        Exchange with Law students (not graded)

In week 4 an exchange with law students will take place. Further information will be provided at the beginning of the course.

Component 3:      The final examination (80% of the final grade)

The exam of this course will be a written examination based on the content covered during the lessons. The final exam will be assessed on an individual basis.

All components will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10, with a maximum of one decimal after the point. These grades are used to calculate the final grade. In order to pass the course, all components and the final grade have to be sufficient, i.e. at least a five and a half. When a student has not fulfilled this requirement, the examiner will register the mark ‘did not fulfil all requirements’ (NAV) whether or not the averaged grade is sufficient.

The components will be weighted as follows:

  1. Written assignment: information supplement of a forensic expert report (20%)
  2. Exchange with law students (0%)
  3. Written exam (80%)

Examination consists of a written assignment in which an expert report is explained in such a way that lawyers can grasp the meaning of the report and a written exam at the end of the course. 

The final grade will be announced at the latest on June 19th (= 15 working days after the final course activity). Between June 19th 2020 to July 17th (=35 working days after the final course activity) a post-exam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email.

LO Tested in component EQ 1 EQ 2 EQ 3 EQ 4 EQ 5 EQ 6 EQ 7 EQ 8 EQ 9 EQ 10
1 3 x                  
2 3 x                  
3 3 x           x      
4 3 x                  
5 3             x      
6 1, 2, 3             x x    
7 1, 2, 3 x                  
8 1, 2       x         x  

Table of specification: the relation between the Learning Outcomes (LO) of the course, the assessment components of the course and the Exit Qualifications (EQ) of the Master’s Forensic Science (described in the Introduction in the Course Catalogue)

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

In order to give some guidance in reading the compulsory literature and preparing the weekly lectures weekly learning outcomes have been formulated.

Week 1

  • Describe the different theories of punishment and having regard to these theories, assess whether a certain form of punishment is desirable or can be explained;
  • Explain and classify the different principles of criminalisation and make arguments against or in favour of criminalisation of a given conduct;
  • Assess the criminalisation of certain criminal behaviour while taking into account the principles of criminalisation.

Week 2

  • Understand the meaning of the principle of legality and reason why its meaning differs in the distinct legal systems;
  • Recognize the different aspects of the principle of legality and methods of legal interpretation;
  • Analyse the influence of the European Convention of Human Rights on the meaning of the principle of legality in distinct legal systems that are subject to the convention;
  • Understand the different elements of crime and how we determine their presence in criminal cases;
  • Evaluate whether a certain approach to mens rea (in a certain legal system), generates a different outcome in a criminal case.

Week 3

  • Understand what justifications and excuses (and their criteria) are and recognize them when presented in a case (limited to the justifications and excuses that are covered by the literature);
  • Explain the connection between the elements of crime and justifications and excuses;
  • Understand the difference in perspective with regard to defences between the German and Dutch continental law systems on one hand and the English common law system on the other;
  • Evaluate whether the previous mentioned difference in perspective, could generate a different outcome in a specific criminal case;

Week 4

Exchange with law students and guest lecture Laura Kieftenbeld (3 hrs)

Week 5

  • Understand the nature and rationale of inchoate offences;
  • Describe the different approaches of the Dutch, German and English system with regard to the actus reus and mens rea of inchoate offences;
  • Discuss the problems that arise with regard to the actus reus and mens rea of inchoate offences (keeping in mind the beforementioned nature);
  • Explain the meaning of the procedural principle of legality and sword and shield function of criminal procedural law.

Week 6

  • Understand the meaning of the right to a fair trial and explain which several fair trial rights it entails;
  • Assess in a specific case whether a violation of article 6 ECHR arises with regard to the examination of witnesses;
  • Explain the main characteristics of and differences between an inquisitorial criminal law system and an adversarial/accusatorial criminal law system;
  • Explain how the difference between a court-appointed expert and a partisan expert asks for a different set of fair trial rights as laid down in article 6 ECHR;
  • Explain the goal of the NRCE and demonstrate knowledge of the NRCE.

Week 7

  • Describe the way the Dutch judge responds to unreliable evidence and illegally gathered evidence;
  • Describe the possible consequences of a breach of procedural rules during the preliminary investigation;
  • Explain in which case a certain consequence/response can be expected.



    Dates, times and room numbers can be found in Datanose. In addition to the weekly lecture three guest lectures on cybercrime are offered, which take place at the law faculty on Roeterseiland. Further information will be announced through Canvas.

     

    Course week

    Activity

    participants

    Lecturer

    Subject

    Literature

    1

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    Introduction to criminal law

     

    Keiler and Roef 2019

    2

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    The criminal act

     

    Keiler and Roef 2019

    3

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    Justifications and excuses and inchoate offences

    Keiler and Roef 2019

    4

    Practical assignment

    all students

    Guest Lecture

    Practical assignment

     

    5

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    Criminal procedure; criminal investigation, the right to a fair trial

    See url’s on Canvas

    6

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    Criminal procedure; code of conduct

     

    See url’s on Canvas

    7

    Lecture

    all students

    C. Ganzeboom

    Criminal procedure; law of evidence

     

    See url’s on Canvas

     

     

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Last year's course evaluation

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student evaluations to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Crimanl Law and Expert Evidence (6EC) N=35  
Strengths
  • The legal point of view in forensic science.
  • Exchange meeting with law students.
  • Enthusiasm of the lecturer.
  • The open, dynamic atmosphere during the lectures. Room for discussion and the amount of interaction with the students was appreciated.
  • The book. According to some of the students, the book was complementary to the lectures. More examples about the cases were explained in the book, and more in-depth information was provided.
 Notes for improvement
  • Feedback during the course was not sufficient. For a lot of students this field is new and therefore more feedback in general on how the student is doing would have been appreciated.
  • It often happened that the teacher could not finish the presentation on time due to the amount of discussion that took place afterwards.
  • Some students found the book hard to read. Additionally, in the lectures a lot of information was explained, so for some students it was not necessary to read the whole book to pass the exam.
Response lecturer:
  • The coordinator has restructured the content of the course. It’s good to see that the course has been very well and that the changes have worked out positively.
  • Regarding the opportunity for students to evaluate how they are doing during the course. The coordinator will review how to accommodate this. One option could be quizzes and automated self-test. Another option could be to offer the students questions which are similar to exam questions as preparation for the lectures. These questions will be discussed so that students can assess the level of their knowledge, at the same time this prepares students for the kind of exam questions which will be asked.
  • As said the content of the course was restructured. Next year the teacher has a better idea of how long different parts of the material will take. In case lectures might run out of time, it will be made explicit that all the material will be covered and students do not need to worry.
  • The book will remain part of the course. The teacher is considering to exemplify which parts of the chapters are particularly important.

Contact information

Coordinator

  • mr. C. Ganzeboom