Dr Jeremy Robson

Job: Associate Professor (Research)

Faculty: Business and Law

School/department: Leicester De Montfort Law School

Address: De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH

T: 0116 366 4349

E: jeremy.robson@dmu.ac.uk

W: http://dmu.ac.uk

Close all sections

Open all sections

Personal profile

Jeremy Robson is an experienced practitioner and academic whose research centres on removing barriers to justice that exist in the rules of evidence.

Jeremy joined DMU in 2018. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1999 and practised as a Barrister across the Midlands, specialising in criminal work. In 2008 he joined Nottingham Trent University. Whilst at NTU, he developed Europe’s first LLM in Advocacy Skills, a bespoke programme commissioned by the Attorney General of Malaysia. He also established and was director of the Centre for Advocacy as well as launching the International Advocacy Teaching Conference.

Jeremy’s research examines the barriers to justice which traditional rules of evidence create. He specialises in interdisciplinary research working with psychologists, linguists, phoneticians and criminologists. In 2019, Jeremy was part of a multidisciplinary team who received funding from the ESRC to develop a new procedure for police voice identification parades. His work on voice identification has been widely cited nationally and internationally.

Jeremy teaches Evidence on the LLB and Litigation and Advocacy on the professional programmes. He has experience in PhD supervision and is always willing to discuss potential supervisions with interested candidates.

Jeremy holds an LLM in Legal Practice, a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education and is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. In 2020 Jeremy was appointed as a fee paid Tribunal Judge, assigned to the Social Entitlement Chamber.

Jeremy is an academic tenant at KCH Garden Square.

Research group affiliations

Jeremy is a member of the Centre for Law Justice and Society

Publications and outputs

Journal Articles

Identification by Voice (1)
dc.title: Identification by Voice (1) dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy; Smith, Harriet
‘Is he a barrister or not?’ A study on perceived and actual accentism at the Bar of England and Wales
dc.title: ‘Is he a barrister or not?’ A study on perceived and actual accentism at the Bar of England and Wales dc.contributor.author: Robson,Jeremy; Braber, Natalie; Jarman, Jane; Ching, Jane; Stevens, Olivia; Pautz Nicholas dc.description.abstract: Barristers present formalised legal arguments before courts and tribunals. As a result, considerable focus is placed on their oral skills. However, people are frequently judged by the accent they use. Those with a more standard accent – ‘Received Pronunciation’ (RP) in the UK – can be perceived as more intelligent and eloquent. This creates a barrier to social mobility because accent-based bias can discriminate against those with non-standard accents. This article examines how the public perceives barristers in England and Wales with different accents and investigates experiences of barristers to establish whether accent discrimination disadvantages certain speakers. It includes an online survey of the general public which found that RP and South-East English accents are still seen as more prestigious. In addition, interviews with barristers illustrate how accent discrimination is widespread and affects career progression. dc.description: Funded by Nottingham Trent University safety and security fund The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.
The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in decision-making in the criminal justice system
dc.title: The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in decision-making in the criminal justice system dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy dc.description.abstract: In this work I examine the approach of the courts to cases which depart from expected and anticipated norms. Using four case studies from areas where courts have had to respond to situations with which it may be unfamiliar, I explain how, if not properly guided, the courts risk relying on assumptions and beliefs which potentially jeopardise the rationality of the decision which is made. This question is considered in the particular contexts of (i) women who wear the Niqab in court; (ii) voice identification evidence; (iii) the offence of coercive control; and (iv) male victims of sexual assault. In my work, I illustrate how the unfamiliarity of decision-makers with each of these topics, when combined with the sociological and psychological factors which arise in these cases, creates the risk that decisions are being made which are not ‘rational’. In part, this is due to the structuralist nature of decision-making, or ‘bricolage.’ In my expository statement I will explain how a bricolage methodology enables analysis of this question. The four areas I have discussed are exemplars of four discrete areas which are outside the normal experience of decision-makers in criminal trials and serve as exemplars of how a bricolage approach is used to solve such problems and the shortcomings of this approach. dc.description: PhD by Publication
Prosecuting Domestic Abuse in Northern Ireland: The Challenges of the Trial Process.
dc.title: Prosecuting Domestic Abuse in Northern Ireland: The Challenges of the Trial Process. dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy dc.description.abstract: The successful implementation of a policy of criminalising coercive control requires a recognition that the trial process has evolved around the notion of determining individual factual disputes. The prosecution of coercive control requires the prosecution to be able to present a narrative which may span a considerable time period. Rules of evidence which have evolved to prove individual incidents may not so readily accommodate an offence which has taken place over time. The trial process may not also be fully equipped to deal with the nature of coercive behaviour. Drawing on experiences from England and Wales, this chapter examines the changes to rules of procedure and evidence which need to be considered alongside the introduction of a new criminal offence.
Perceptions of 'accent prestige'
dc.title: Perceptions of 'accent prestige' dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy; Braber, Natalie dc.description.abstract: With speech at the core of what Barristers do, how much is accent prestige persist among the public and the bar? Is this blocking the best talent? dc.description: This project was funded under Nottingham Trent University's safety and security theme
Evaluating earwitness identification procedures: adapting pre-parade instructions and parade procedure
dc.title: Evaluating earwitness identification procedures: adapting pre-parade instructions and parade procedure dc.contributor.author: Smith, Harriet; Roeser, Jens; Pautz, Nikolas; Davis, Josh P; Robson, Jeremy; Wright, David; Braber, Natalie; Stacey, Paula C. dc.description.abstract: Voice identification parades can be unreliable, as earwitness responses are error-prone. In this paper we tested performance across serial and sequential procedures, and varied pre-parade instructions, with the aim of reducing errors. The participants heard a target voice and later attempted to identify it from a parade. In Experiment 1 they were either warned that the target may or may not be present (standard warning) or encouraged to consider responding “not present” because of the associated risk of a wrongful conviction (strong warning). Strong warnings prompted a conservative criterion shift, with participants less likely to make a positive identification regardless of whether the target was present. In contrast to previous findings, we found no statistically reliable difference in accuracy between serial and sequential parades. Experiment 2 ruled out a potential confound in Experiment 1. Taken together, our results suggest that adapting pre-parade instructions provides a simple way of reducing the risk of false identifications dc.description: open access article
Assessing the Specificity and Accuracy of Accent Judgments by Lay Listeners
dc.title: Assessing the Specificity and Accuracy of Accent Judgments by Lay Listeners dc.contributor.author: Braber, Natalie; Smith, Harriet; Wright, David; Hardy, Alexander; Robson, Jeremy dc.description.abstract: Historically, there has been less research carried out on earwitness than eyewitness testimony. However, in some cases, earwitness evidence might play an important role in securing a conviction. This paper focuses on accent which is a central characteristic of voices in a forensic linguistic context. The paper focuses on two experiments (Experiment 1, n = 41; Experiment 2, n = 57) carried out with participants from a wide range of various locations around the United Kingdom to rate the accuracy and confidence in recognizing accents from voices from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Ireland as well as looking at specificity of answers given and how this varies for these regions. Our findings show that accuracy is variable and that participants are more likely to be accurate when using vaguer descriptions (such as “Scottish”) than being more specific. Furthermore, although participants lack the meta-linguistic ability to describe the features of accents, they are able to name particular words and pronunciations which helped them make their decision. dc.description: open access article
The pragmatic functions of ‘respect’ in lawyers’ courtroom discourse: a case study of Brexit hearings
dc.title: The pragmatic functions of ‘respect’ in lawyers’ courtroom discourse: a case study of Brexit hearings dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy; Murray - Edwards, Helen; Braber, Natalie; Wright, David dc.description.abstract: This paper is a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the use of the word respect by the main advocates in the High Court and Supreme Court hearings of R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (the ‘Brexit case’). Courtroom discourse has received substantial research attention in pragmatics, and previous work has largely focused on notions of face and im/politeness exhibited in power-asymmetric encounters between lawyers and witnesses in hostile cross-examination. In contrast, this paper focuses on lawyer-lawyer and lawyer-judge interaction in appellate hearings and explores the ways in which advocates negotiate the task of making face-threats that are inherent to the discourse situation, while maintaining the levels of professional courtesy demanded by the institution. The word respect has a particular role in managing this balance, and has attached to it well-established implicit, indexical and professional meanings within the judiciary. The corpus analysis here shows that, although the advocates in question use respect in seemingly formulaic and ritualised ways, it is used to achieve multiple facework and interactional goals. Throughout the analysis we see advocates use respect when (dis)agreeing with judges, challenging opposing counsel and making recommendations to the court. dc.description: The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.
Redrawing the boundaries: The adequacy of the Sexual Offences Act in addressing female sexual offending
dc.title: Redrawing the boundaries: The adequacy of the Sexual Offences Act in addressing female sexual offending dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy; O'Hagan, Andrew; Newman, Lucy dc.description.abstract: Discussion around sexual offending traditionally focuses on the notion of male offenders and female victims. In this paper we argue that there is clear evidence that females commit offences and that males are often the victims of these offences. We discuss the evidence for this and the impact it has on the victims of these offences. We argue that the processes which have informed policy in this area have dismissed this class of offending and as a result the Sexual Offences Act and associated sentencing guidelines do not provide a clear enough framework for the prosecution of these offenders. We present some suggestions for how this lacuna could be addressed. dc.description: The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.
Prosecuting Coercive Control: Reforming Storytelling in the Courtroom
dc.title: Prosecuting Coercive Control: Reforming Storytelling in the Courtroom dc.contributor.author: Robson, Jeremy; Bettinson, Vanessa dc.description.abstract: The criminalisation of coercive control is a welcome development in ending violence against women. It has created an offence aimed at tackling the abuse of power and control within relationships. Despite this, however, there are indications that there is a high attrition rate in bringing prosecutions, notwithstanding the recognition by prosecuting authorities of the need to bring “evidence-led” prosecutions. In this paper we review the ways in which having an offence which is proved via a narrative account of a personal relationship can run into difficulties when faced with rules of evidence which have evolved in a justice system more used to dealing with incident-based offences. Although in many cases judicial discretion allows flexibility to overcome these problems, we argue that the process would be made easier by explicit recognition of the approach to be taken in the rules of evidence. dc.description: This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in the Criminal Law Review following peer review. The definitive published version will be available online on Westlaw UK.

Wright, D., Robson,J., Murray-Edwards H., and Braber, N., (2021)

The pragmatic functions of ‘respect’ in lawyers' courtroom discourse: A case study of Brexit hearings. Journal of Pragmatics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.028

Robson, J., Newman, L., and O’Hagan, A. (2021) Redrawing the boundaries: The adequacy of the Sexual Offences Act in addressing female sexual offending. Journal of Criminal Law. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018320984451

Robson, J. and Bettinson, V. (2020) Prosecuting Coercive Control: Reforming Storytelling in the Courtroom. Criminal Law Review, 12, pp. 1107-1126

Smith, H.M.J., Bird, K., Roeser, J., Robson, J., Braber, N., Wright, D. and Stacey, P.C. (2020) Voice parade procedures: optimising witness performance, Memory, https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1673427

Robson, J. and Smith, H. (2019) Can we have faith jurors listen without prejudice? Likely sources of inaccuracy in voice comparison exercises. Criminal Law Review, , 2, pp.115-130

Smith, H., Baguley, T., Dunn, A., Stacey, P., and Robson, J. (2018) Forensic voice discrimination: The effect of speech type and background noise on performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

Robson J. (2018) Lend Me Your Ears: An Analysis Of How Voice Identification Evidence Is Treated In Four Neighbouring Criminal Justice Systems. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22 (3), pp. 218-238

Robson, J. (2017) A fair hearing? The use of voice identification parades in criminal investigations in England and Wales. Criminal Law Review,1, pp. 36 – 50

Robson, J. (2016) The veiled lodger - a reflection on the status of R v D. Nottingham Law Journal, 25, pp.105-111.

Robson, J. (2016) The Niqaab and the Myth of Pinocchio’s Nose: Is the Niqaab an Impediment to Fact Finding in an Adversarial Trial? An Analysis of R v D. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 5(2), pp.319-343.

Edwards, H. and Robson, J. , (2012). Caging the green-eyed monster – restrictions on the use of sexual infidelity as a defence to murder. Nottingham Law Journal, 21, pp. 143-145. ISSN 0965-0660

Popular/trade press

Robson, J. and Braber, N. (2023) Perceptions of Accent Prestige Counsel magazine

Robson, J. (2018) Women should be allowed to wear the niqab in court – here’s why. The Conversation [Online]

Robson, J. , (2017). EU wildlife laws should be celebrated – and retained – not treated as red tape. The Conversation. (also published in the I newspaper).

Robson, J., (2017). Is the era of advocacy dead? Lawyer 2B.

Robson, J., (2016). Split the BPTC, watch out for the diversity risks. Lawyer 2B.

Robson, J., (2016). The vital rules which meant a double murderer nearly escaped justice. The Conversation.

Robson, J., (2016). Gove’s nonsense: barristers vs solicitor advocates. Solicitors Journal. ISSN 0038-1152

Robson, J., (2016). All for one or one for all? Solicitors Journal, 160 (10), p. 15. ISSN 0038-1152

Robson, J., (2015). Crown Court: structured mayhem better than complete mayhem. The Times. ISSN 0140-0460

Robson, J., (2015). How Michael Gove is changing the tune on justice reform. The Conversation.

Robson, J., (2015). CPS faces a stark choice. .

Robson, J., (2014). Lawyers need training to protect vulnerable witnesses in sex offence cases. The Conversation

Edwards, H. and Robson, J., 2014. Advocacy series, part 5: Cross examination. .

Robson, J. and Edwards, H., 2014. Advocacy series, part 6: Closing speeches. , pp. 18-19.

Robson, J., 2014. The BPTC checklist. , p. 20.

Robson, J., 2014. Why advocacy standards must be maintained. , pp. 1-3. ISSN 0038-1152

Robson J. and Edwards, H., 2013. Advocacy series part 1: What is advocacy? .

Robson, J. and Edwards, H., 2013. Advocacy series, part 2: Case preparation. .

Robson, J. and Edwards, H., 2013. Advocacy series, part 4: Submissions. .

Robson, J., 2013. Blurring the lines. , p. 17. ISSN 0038-1152

Robson, J. and Edwards, H., 2012. Common cause. , pp. 13-14.

Research interests/expertise

Interdisciplinary approaches to Criminal Litigation and Evidence

Criminal Law

The Practice and Teaching of Advocacy

Judicial decision-making

Areas of teaching

LPC - Full time, part time and blended - Litigation and advocacy

LLB Evidence

Qualifications

2023, PhD by Publication, De Montfort University. The Judge as Bricoleur: Bricolage in judicial decision-making in the criminal justice system.

2015, LLM in Legal Practice (Distinction), Nottingham Trent University

2011, Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, Nottingham Trent University

1999, Bar Vocational Course (Very Competent), Inns of Court School of Law

1998, LLB (Hons) 2.1, University of East Anglia

1999, Bar Vocational Course (Very Competent), Inns of Court School of Law

Courses taught

Legal Practice Course

LLB

LLM SQE

Honours and awards

Legal Cheek – social media user of the year 2016. Nominated for Emojicaselaw

Membership of external committees

Solicitors Regulatory Authority – Higher Rights of Audience advisory group

External examiner – Bar Standards Board 2011 – 2020

Membership of professional associations and societies

Case notes editor – International Journal of Evidence and Proof 2015 -2022

Academic Member (KCH Garden Square)

Fellow of the Higher Education Authority

Advocacy Training Council accredited advocacy tutor

Member of the Middle Temple.

Conference attendance

Conference organisation

Organiser Nottingham Trent University – Advancing Advocacy Conference 23 June 2017

Lead Organiser (with Helen Edwards) – International Advocacy Teaching Conference 26 and 27 June 2016

Lead Organiser (with Helen Edwards) – International Advocacy Teaching Conference 27 and 28 June 2014

Conference contributions

Smith, H.M.J., Kelly, S., Braber, N., Robson, J. and Wright, D. (2018) Developing a procedure for eliciting accurate, detailed, and consistent forensic voice descriptions from lay witnesses. British Psychological Society Cognitive Psychology Section Annual Conference 2018, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, 29-31 August 2018.

Smith, H., Braber, N., Robson, J., Wright, D. and Kelly, S. (2018) Not deep just average: Improving the usability of lay-listener voice descriptions. Germanic Society for Forensic Linguistics (GSFL2018), University of York, York, 2-5 August 2018.

Robson, J., Braber, N., Smith, H.M.J., Wright, D., Hardy, A. (2018) Accent detection in earwitness identification. Germanic Society for Forensic Linguistics (GSFL2018), University of York, York, 2-5 August 2018.

ROBSON, J., 2017. A fair "hearing": voice identification, parades and PACE. In: Advancing Advocacy Conference: Challenges Ahead in Criminal Evidence and Procedure, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, 23 June 2017.

ROBSON, J., 2015. The veil and the myth of Pinocchio's nose. In: Human Rights, Law and Religion: Perspectives on the Islamic Face Veil [seminar], Centre for Conflict, Rights and Justice, in collaboration with the NLS Centre for Advocacy, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, 30 March 2015, Nottingham.

ROBSON, J., 2014. Criminal advocacy training after Jeffrey. In: International Advocacy Teaching Conference 2014, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, 27-28 June 2014, Nottingham.

EDWARDS, H. and ROBSON, J., 2014. How to commit the perfect crime - designing teaching materials which develop storytelling abilities in trainee advocates. In: Applied Legal Storytelling Conference, City University London, London, 22-24 July 2014, London.

EDWARDS, H. and ROBSON, J., 2013. Do pride and prejudice stand in the way of persuasion? Embracing other disciplines for the advancement of advocacy teaching. In: Association of Law Teachers: 48th Annual Conference: All Consuming Legal Education, Nottingham Conference Centre, Nottingham, 24-26 March 2013, Nottingham.

Current research students

Gavin Ridley - 2nd supervisor with Dr Alwyn Jones and Professor Dave Walsh

Administering justice via video link: Assessing the impact of the use of video link in immigration bail hearings in the UK in the context of the Compliant Environment.

Externally funded research grants information

01/11/2019 ‘Improving Voice Identification Procedures’ Co-investigator (with the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford and Nottingham Trent University) on a three year Economic and Social Research Council grant (£866,097) to develop an improved procedure for constructing voice identification parades and investigating the normative assumptions in the criminal justice system.

Developing a procedure for eliciting accurate, detailed, and consistent forensic voice descriptions from lay witnesses – British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grants Fund Co-Investigator with Dr H Smith and Dr N Braber.

Links to practice

Fee paid Tribunal Judge – Social Entitlement Chamber

Associate Tenant – KCH Garden Square Barristers