Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

What is the Quality of this New Digital Legal World?

528

Published on

Presentation for the BILETA 2005 conference

Presentation for the BILETA 2005 conference

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
528
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1.
    • Over-Commoditised;
    • Over-Centralised;
    • Over-Observed?
    • What is the Quality of this
    • New Digital Legal World?
    Michael Bromby Hayley Ness Division of Law Department of Psychology Glasgow Caledonian University Napier University
  • 2. CCTV in the UK
    • Prevalent in city centre
    • Increase in digital recording
      • Improved quality of footage
      • Greater storage capacity
    • Valuable for criminal prosecutions
      • Does quality affect identification?
      • How valid are identifications?
  • 3. Identifying the Crime
    • Evidence of actus reus
      • Theft
      • Assault
      • Damage to property
    • Quality need not be an issue
    • Images convey more information that oral or written forms of evidence
  • 4. Identifying the Crime Actions are identifiable from poor quality CCTV
  • 5. Identifying the Person
    • Quality is more important
    • Discernible facial features
    • Pathways to recognition
      • Suspect familiar
      • Suspect unfamiliar
    • Emphasis on ‘who is observing’
  • 6. Unfamiliar Face Recognition
    • Credit card study
      • 50% hit rate
      • 35% correct reject rate for similar faces
    • Target arrays
      • More time available
      • Matched for viewpoint and expression
      • Ideal conditions
  • 7. Unfamiliar Face Recognition Target face
  • 8. Familiar Face Recognition
    • The image quality is less significant
    • Over 70% hit rates can be achieved
    • Familiarity is associated with:
      • Gait
      • Body shape
      • Posture
      • Movement
      • Clothing
  • 9. Familiar Face Recognition
  • 10. Familiar Face Recognition
  • 11. Psychological Modelling
  • 12. Admissible Comparisons
    • Attorney General’s Reference (2 of 2002)
      • Clear images can be left to the jury
      • A witness familiar to the suspect may make an identification
      • Special knowledge acquired by repeatedly viewing the footage
      • Expert opinion may be provided
  • 13. Jury Comparisons
    • They are unfamiliar
    • High quality images may be misleading
    • Can familiarity be acquired?
  • 14. Familiar Witness Recognition
    • Family or close friend
    • Social or societal connection
    • Police or other agency involvement
      • At what stage does familiarity evolve?
  • 15. Repeated Viewing
    • This does not conform to Ψ model
    • Faces need to be learned
      • Alteration of angle
      • Lighting conditions
      • Context or setting variance
  • 16. Expert Opinion
    • Not required if imagery is high quality
    • Can be inadvertently persuasive
    • Unfamiliar face matching
      • Repeated viewing?
      • Knowledge of anatomy and anthropology
  • 17. Conclusions
    • Quality of imagery is a problem for identification in criminal procedure
    • Less of an issue for familiar witnesses
    • More problems than quality associated with unknown face matching
    • Expert evidence is not always permitted
    • More research is needed in some areas

×