̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - John Spencer

̽��ֱ�� people recognised in 2017 New Year Honours list

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 22:30:00 +0000

Ottoline Leyser (above left) is Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory. She becomes a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) for services to Plant Science, Science in Society and Equality and Diversity in Science.

Dame Ottoline’s research aims to understand how plants adjust their growth and development to suit the environmental conditions in which they are growing. In particular, she is studying how plants change the number of shoot branches they produce depending on factors such as nutrient supply and damage to the main shoot. She is particularly interested in the roles and mechanisms of action of plant hormones such as auxin. She is a Fellow of Clare College.

“This is a huge honour,” said Dame Ottoline. “It’s so uplifting that things I really care about can be celebrated in this extraordinary way. Science has such a lot to offer the world, which makes it really important that science is open to all, so that everyone can contribute to the process and benefit from the results.”

Shankar Balasubramanian (above right) is Herchel Smith Professor of Medicinal Chemistry in the Department of Chemistry the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Senior Group Leader at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and Fellow of Trinity College. He has been named a Knight Bachelor for services to science and medicine. He co-invented next generation sequencing which has provided the most transformative change in biology and medicine for several decades, and has led to the $1000 dollar human genome. He has also made important contributions to four-stranded DNA, known as G-quadruplexes, and their role in cancer.

“It is a great honour for me and a wonderful acknowledgement of the research and I have carried out in Cambridge with my co-workers and collaborators over the past two decades,” said Sir Shankar. “I was particularly pleased to see recognition of our basic science and its impact on medicine, as I am jointly appointed between the Departments of Chemistry and Medicine.”

Professor John Pyle, Head of the Department of Chemistry, is appointed CBE for services to Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Science. Professor Pyle’s research uses of state-of-the-art numerical models, run on supercomputers, to study the processes controlling the present state of the atmosphere and its evolution. He is a Fellow of St Catharine’s College.

"I'm delighted, of course," said Pyle. "We are the best chemistry department in the country and one of the very best in the world. It's fantastic for the department to get recognition for that work."

Professor John Spencer, Bye Fellow in Law at Murray Edwards College, Life Fellow of Selwyn College and Professor Emeritus of Law, is also appointed CBE for services to the Reform of Law Concerning Child Witnesses. His interests include criminal law, criminal evidence, comparative criminal law, and the law of tort. He has been involved in a great many of projects for law reform, including as a Consultant to the Law Commission on a project to reform the hearsay rule in 1995; as a member of a committee of experts set up by the European Commission to study fraud on the Community finances, and as a member of the Home Office group that drafted “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings” (1999-2001). He was also a consultant to the Auld Review of Criminal Courts in 2001.

Professor Jane Francis, Director of the British Antarctic Survey and Fellow of Darwin College, is appointed Dame Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George for services UK Polar Science and Diplomacy. She was only the fourth woman in history to receive the Polar Medal in 2002. Since being appointed Director of BAS in 2013, she has had a dual role of ensuring UK scientific polar excellence and promoting British sovereign interests in Antarctica. As the first female Director, she has embraced gender diversity and has been an inspiration and influential figure in the British scientific establishment. She is globally recognised as a leader in Polar Science and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of palaeo-climates. She has also undertaken a wide range of international roles which further promote the UK’s polar interests and sits on polar science advisory boards for other countries.

Professor Peter Weissberg, former Medical Director of the British Heart Foundation and Fellow of Wolfson College, has been awarded a CBE for services to medical research and cardiovascular health. Prior to his tenure at the BHF, Professor Weissberg established the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine at Cambridge and spent ten years as the ̽��ֱ��’s first BHF Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine.

Distinguished members of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge have been named in the 2017 New Year Honours list, announced today. Professor Ottoline Leyser, Professor Shankar Balasubramanian and Professor John Pyle are among those who have been recognised for their contributions to society.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

̽��ֱ��Defects of Jury Trials

ns480 — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:35:43 +0000

Professor Spencer is Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/jr-spencer/79

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the light of the discharge of the jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce, questions have been asked about the value of the jury system. Professor John Spencer discusses the pitfalls of the system over the years and suggests ways in which the delivery of justice might be improved.

̽��ֱ��Defects of Jury Trials

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Professor John Spencer

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Children’s evidence cross-examined

bjb42 — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:29:09 +0000

̽��ֱ��complex question of how children should give evidence to court – particularly when it could be critical to convicting someone of child abuse – will be the subject of a ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge conference next month.

̽��ֱ��one-day conference, hosted by the ̽��ֱ��'s Law Faculty, will bring together experts from various legal systems around the world, including some where mechanisms are already in place to prevent young children from having to go through the distressing experience of giving their evidence to full court during a trial.

At the moment, English law demands that even tiny children come to court for a live cross-examination if there is to be any chance of convicting a person who has abused them.

Perhaps the highest profile case in recent times was that of Stephen Barker - one of three individuals convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child in the case of Baby P. In 2009, Barker was jailed for life in a separate case, for raping a two-year-old girl. His conviction hinged, however, on the appearance of the child at the trial, aged just four, to describe how she had been abused. ̽��ֱ��girl in question became the youngest witness to give evidence in a criminal trial in this country.

Critics argue that demanding a child's evidence in this way has a number of disadvantages. ̽��ֱ��child is forced to relive a terrible, distressing incident in very stressful circumstances, and after lengthy delays that may have altered his or her memory. ̽��ֱ��defence may get little from the child and struggle to conduct a meaningful cross-examination. And, given the fact that the child may not remember what happened and struggle to communicate, even well-founded cases of this nature often have to be abandoned.

In 1989 an official committee - the Pigot Committee - proposed a mechanism designed to avoid these difficulties. Under its proposal, the whole of a young child's evidence, including the cross-examination, would take place out of court in advance. While this system, or something like it, has been implemented elsewhere, in England and Wales it was never accepted.

In fact, children's evidence being used in full court may soon become more, rather than less common. In March 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an existing presumption that children should not be called to give evidence in family proceedings was no longer appropriate, because it could not be reconciled with the rights of everyone concerned according to articles in the European Convention on Human Rights.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge conference will bring together speakers from various parts of the world where the Pigot recommendation, or similar, is in operation. It will include experts on the legal systems of New Zealand, Western Australia, Austria and Norway, as well as that of England and Wales.

̽��ֱ��aim is to establish exactly how far a measure such as that recommended by the Committee 12 years ago really would resolve the problem of cross-examining young children, were it to be introduced in England and Wales.

̽��ֱ��conference has been organised by J R Spencer, a Professor in the Cambridge Law Faculty who has written extensively on the subject of children's evidence, and by Professor Michael Lamb from the ̽��ֱ��'s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, who has worked extensively on issues related to the questioning of children in legal contexts.

It will be held from 10am to 5pm on 14 April in the Law Faculty, 10, West Road, Cambridge. ̽��ֱ��event is open by registration only, and requests for registration should be sent to Ms felicity Eves, School of Law, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, or by Emailing: fre20@cam.ac.uk

Should young children be exposed to the traumatic experience of giving evidence in open court, or does the justice system need to change its approach?

At the moment, English law demands that even tiny children come to court for a live cross-examination if there is to be any chance of convicting a person who has abused them.

Dan4th from Flickr

Justice sends mixed messages

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes