This article examines the conduct of empirical legal research and its relationship to law reform. Through a detailed analysis of the largest survey of State and federal judges conducted in Australia it explores some of the limits to empirical investigation, particularly the tendency to rely primarily on judicial perspectives as the basis for law reform. Focusing upon empirical legal research on the subject of expert evidence the article initially examines research methodologies, then extends the analysis to consider the correspondence between the collection, interpretation and presentation of empirical data and recommendations for legal change. This involves an assessment of a broad range of methodological and theoretical issues with implications extending well beyond the particular survey. Last, the empirical research on expert evidence will be evaluated using the principal reform proposal suggested by the investigators. This exercise will provide an indication of methodological problems which beset the survey and demonstrate practical limitations with the particular approach to expertise.

Exclusion of evidence when its probative value is exceeded by its risk of creating unfair prejudice has long been a fundamental safeguard against unfair trials and wrongful convictions. In 2016, IMM v The Queen (IMM) curtailed that safeguard by holding that trial judges should assess probative value on the assumption that the evidence is reliable and credible. The IMM majority placed emphasis on the capacity of the evidence. In doing so, it provided a mysterious qualification: some evidence may lack probative value not because it is unreliable, but because it is ‘simply unconvincing’. The majority illustrated unconvincingness with the example of an unreliable eyewitness identification. Courts and legal scholars criticised the majority judgment for its harmful implications and for its apparent incoherence. From a review of almost 4 years of post-IMM jurisprudence and deeper exploration into one particular case, we find that ‘simply unconvincing’ has accentuated the confusion and inconsistency in Australian evidence jurisprudence.

Blue LEDs with double-heterojunction (DH) have been produced in AIN-GaN system grown on n-type 6H-SiC substrates via metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD). These devices employ a GaN active layer bordered by Mg doped p-type Al0.1Ga0.9N and Si doped n-type Al0.1Ga0.9N. A vertical device design was utilized with a p-type Au contact centered on the chip top side for wire bonding. The backside contact to the SiC is Ni. The peak emission from these devices is 430 nm with a FWHM of 65 nm, producing a deep blue color. The output power is 1.7 mW at 20 mA which corresponds to an external quantum efficiency of 3%.