Abstract

This article seeks to demonstrate two things. The first is that any discussion of free proof must be considered in the context of the fact–finding process as a whole. The second is that debates about free proof are only partly about epistemology, but become impassioned because they go to the core of the constitutional settlement: what is the justifiable basis on which the court, as an organ of the state, decides whether an individual (citizen) is telling the truth, and consequently whether the state should exercise its power to deprive an individual (citizen) of her liberty or property in some way. What this article does not seek to consider is the extent to which, or the manner in which, different stages in the evidence lifecycle should be free or constrained. It seeks solely to clarify the nature of the conceptual space within which that debate takes place.

Recommended Citation

Dwyer, Deirdre M. (2005) "What Does It Mean To Be Free? The Concept of 'Free Proof' in the Western Legal Tradition," International Commentary on Evidence: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1, Article 6.
DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1041
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art6