Forensic science evidence in question

Analyses the Court of Appeal judgment in R. v T in which the court in remarking on shoeprint comparison evidence considered how expert witnesses, in particular forensic scientists, should present their evidence in court and the types and quality of the data they can draw on when formulating their conclusions. Identifies what the court had to say about the methodology employed by the expert witness, in particular the use of likelihood ratios. Emphasises positive features of the judgment, rejecting interpretations which threaten to diminish the integrity and distort the probative value of scientific evidence.