This paper explores the role of Intercept Interpreters/Translators (IITs) in law enforcement communication surveillance efforts. It focuses on the production and reliability of Translated Intercept Records (TIR), which are comprehensive written records in the target language that may be produced for intelligence purposes or for use in court as Translated Intercept Evidence (TIE). The paper underscores the critical importance of reliable TIR for both evidentiary use and operational decision-making. The authors emphasise the need to establish minimal standards in the quest for reliability and dispel the misconception that literal translations fulfil evidentiary requirements. The standards proposed in this paper aim to minimise interpretation errors to enhance the overall effectiveness of investigations and safeguard the interests of justice. The paper concludes by highlighting the need to align judicial expectations with sound translation practices.

A comparison is made between probability and relative plausibility as approaches for the interpretation of evidence. It is argued that a probabilistic approach is capable of answering the criticisms of the proponents of relative plausibility. It is also shown that a probabilistic approach can answer the problem of overlapping where there is evidence that each side claims supports its theory of what happened.

Eyewitness evidence is often important in criminal cases, but false or misleading eyewitness evidence is known to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. One explanation for mistakes that jurors are making when evaluating eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate knowledge relating to false memory. This article examines lay beliefs relating to memory and ways in which they diverge from expert consensus. It identifies ways in which current directions provided to jurors in this area are likely to be deficient in influencing juror knowledge and in helping them apply that knowledge in a case context, and develops criteria that can be used to assess the likely effectiveness of directions. A new evidence-based training direction is designed based on these criteria, and tested in a mock jury study (N = 411). Results suggest that the proposed direction is more effective than a basic direction in influencing juror knowledge and facilitating the application of that knowledge to case facts.