May it Please the Rule of Law? A Comparative Study into the Scope and Desirability of Independent Judicial Research in Contemporary Criminal Trials

Featuring signs of polarisation and the erosion of facts, as well as a wealth of easily accessible information, today’s developed democracies seem to have given rise to a culture where information is sought routinely and on, practically, anything that sparks one’s interest. Modern judges, too, operate in this environment and, presumably, conduct (non)trivial (Internet) research like most of us. This becomes all the more plausible when judges face unfamiliar, non-routine, scientifically or otherwise factually complex disputes, or incomplete and/or ambiguous trial evidence. Indeed, these circumstances may nudge them into gathering information, independently, that is supplementary to the evidence obtained at trial and aimed at gaining a richer understanding of a dispute’s factual background. Doing so may offer certain benefits in light of trial expediency and court legitimacy. However, it may just as well elicit concerns with regard to judicial impartiality, (perceived) bias, and other fundamental fair trial guarantees.

This thesis explores a neglected area of criminal procedure, and contributes to a broader debate on the challenges judges face today due to, among others, the evolving relationship between science and law, information overload, and digitalisation. Examining two national and three international criminal justice administrations, it sets out to compile a Model Benchbook on Independent Judicial Research.