Abstract
The High Court decision in Pell v The Queen continues to be the subject of extensive academic controversy. In a pair of important articles, evidence and criminal law scholar Andrew Hemming has defended the Court’s decision. This rejoinder critiques Hemming’s defence (and, by extension, the High Court’s decision) on three grounds. First, because the decision conflates unchallenged testimony with honest and reliable testimony. Second, because it relies on ad hoc probabilistic determinations of discrete and unreplicable historical events. Third, because it fails to answer a key epistemological question: how could the High Court know more about what really did or did not happen in that sacristy than the jury?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
