header-logo header-logo

05 June 2015 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7655 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Math on trial (Pt 1)

nlj_7655_pamplin

Dr Chris Pamplin looks at some common mathematical errors that have led courts astray, and how to avoid them

Math on Trial (Schneps, L & Colmez, C, 2013, Basic Books) is an excellent book that catalogues the use—or perhaps that should be misuse—of mathematics in the courtroom. While the publication is well worth reading in its entirety, the purpose here is to summarise the 10 common mathematical errors the authors distil from the legal casebook.

As the authors say, “despite their ubiquity…most of these fallacies are easy to spot”. This two-part series offers your very own fallacy-spotting crib sheet.

Error no 1: multiplying non-independent probabilities

Sally Clark was a solicitor who in 1999 was found guilty of the murder of two of her sons. At trial, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, a leading paediatrician, gave evidence for the prosecution. It was his introduction of a published statistic on the likelihood of two cot deaths occurring in one family—given as 1 in 73 million—that is the focus here.

When two events

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll