English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Over the last two decades, there has been a massive world-wide increase in the prosecution of charges of possessing online pornography. Digital expert evidence is relied upon in such prosecutions in order to satisfy the charge element of ‘possession’. Little is known about the effectiveness of such expert evidence in proving that the defendant’s computer contained such offensive material. This article provides a qualitative analysis of how effective such expert evidence is by analysing three illustrative contemporary Australian online pornography trials where the authors interviewed some of the jurors and other trial participants about their perceptions of the digital expert evidence. We found that jurors had difficulty with the way some experts presented information rather than the complexity of the information. Practical suggestions to improve digital expert evidence are discussed, including the need for more and better use of visual aids.

Comprehension problems that jurors encounter with expert evidence in online child pornography trials