Published Articles

My research is concentrated in six distinct areas, though only in four of these do I remain active at the moment.  To get more specific information and obtain a summary of my published research and seminars undertaken pursuant to each topic, click on the menu sub-heading link.


My most significant and long-running interest relates to the law of evidence, in all its forms. My recent research concentrates on two issues in particular: the validity of various hearsay reforms, and a concern about the “principled” approach to evidentiary admissibility, where I have attempted to question the argument that this approach automatically leads to better and more accurate decision making.  In this area, I advocate the need for long-term study of results and periodic review of theoretical foundations to ensure that the “principle” continues to remain an important aspect of the discretionary exercise.


My research on criminal justice and the adversarial process focuses upon the criminal trial and how its framework creates structural impediments to the interests of “outsiders” who wish to participate in the pursuit of justice.  My concern particularly lies with the treatment of victims, and how long established barriers premised on an outdated vision of criminal justice are used to inhibit legislative initiatives designed to ameliorate the needs of those who suffer most visibly from criminal activities.  I am also writing a book on the substantive principles of criminal law.


The relationship between animals and the law, and particularly the manner in which the law attempts to protect animals from harm by creating criminal sanctions, is a more recent area of interest for me.  While I am interested in all aspects of this area of law, my research focuses primarily on three matters: 1) the inefficacy of the criminal sanction as a manner for protecting animals from harm; 2) the government’s use of criminal sanctions as a means of avoiding tough questions about how animals should be treated, and 3) the lack of any remedial options for animal advocacy groups under a welfare regime.


My most recent area of research interest is legal education.  The focus of my research is primarily concentrated on the way in which students learn, and my efforts to look at new ways to engage today’s law students.  In particular, I have begun researching the use of the “flipped classroom” in the law school context for the purpose of understanding whether this technique has the potential to be beneficial for the Millenial generation of students.


A primary focus of my early research career, I am writing less often in this area today.  Most of my early work concentrated on s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, and the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but I have also published articles on a number of topics relating to the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the judicial role in ensuring that constitutional norms are respected.


While I am no longer writing in this area, it was the dominant focus of my research between 1996-2003.  I have long had an interest in constitutional remedies, and the difficult task a court faces when it concludes that a particular state action or law conflicts with a constitutional imperative.  While I considered a number of issues, my primary focus was narrowed to two aspects of the remedial dilemma: 1) How should a court approach the decision to exclude evidence from a criminal or civil trial subsequent to a constitutional violation by a state actor?, and, 2) How should the courts approach statutes which have the possibility of being constitutionally infirm in a relatively small number of cases?  My research considered the first issue in both the Canadian and New Zealand context, while the second was restricted to examination of the Canadian Charter of Rights, and the constitutional exemption doctrine.