WJEC Level 3 Applied Certificate and Diploma Criminology
These notes cover the entirety of AC3.1 for Unit 3. For use in the Crime Scene to Court Room Controlled Assessment (WJEC Applied Diploma in Criminology). Include sufficient detail and relevant case examples. Achieved top grade A using these notes.
summary unit 3 ac31 notes wjec applied diploma in criminology
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
Edition:
ISBN:
Edition:
More summaries for
AC 1.1 and 1.2 unit 1 model answer
WJEC Level 3 Applied Diploma in Criminology Unit 2 AC1.1 Compare Criminal behaviour and Deviance
Ac 1.4 Evaluate the roles of personnel involved in criminal investigations
All for this textbook (143)
Written for
A/AS Level
WJEC
Criminology
Criminology Unit 3 Controlled Assessment
All documents for this subject (10)
1
review
By: nevewilsoff • 1 year ago
Seller
Follow
phoebegx
Reviews received
Content preview
AC3.1 Examine information for validity
Evidence
Evidence in criminal cases is usually reliable, but there are occasions where it has been
shown and evidence is not valid. An example of this is the case of Sally Clark and the expert
evidence provided by Sir Roy Meadow. For any evidence, whether that be physical or
testimonial, it has to be admissible, reliable and credible. Eyewitness testimony isn’t always
accurate and may lack validity, this could be due to the memory, especially if the incident
occured a long time before trial. This could make information provided less accurate over as
the witness might find it difficult to remember and it can lack currency. Loftus et al found that
where a weapon was involved in a case, ‘weapon focus’ by witnesses meant they did not
form a detailed memory of other aspects, such as good description of the offender which is
much more important. In the case of Ronald Cotton a false eyewitness testimony led to a
miscarriage of justice.
In complex technical cases, experts often compel jurors when deciding the verdict. Expert
witnesses can be forensic scientists or medical specialists for example. As experts know
more about a specific subject than lay people, jurors find experts' opinions more credible and
give it great weight when reaching a verdict. However, relying on experts can result in
miscarriages of justice if the evidence they provide is inaccurate. For instance, expert Sir
Roy Meadow inaccurately told the court in three separate cases inaccurate information that
convicted all three defendants of killing their children when they were in fact innocent.
Evidence provided by experts who are biased can also undermine the validity of the
information. For instance, forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse, involved in a number of
miscarriages of justice involved in defendants wrongfully charged with IRA terrorism
offences. One example of a case he was involved with was the Birmingham six who were
wrongly convicted if bombing two Birmingham pubs in 1974.
The Birmingham Six - Six Irish men had been sent to prison for the 1974 terrorist bombings
in an English and Birmingham pubs. In 1974, two IRA bombs exploded in two pubs, killing
21
people and injuring lots more. The reason for these bombing was because of the ongoing
conflict between the British government and the IRA over the status of Northern Ireland. Six
Irish suspects were arrested and sent to interrogation. The IRA then claimed responsibility
for the bombings and declared that the six were not members.
During the trial, the defendants maintained their innocence and claimed the police had
forced the confessions out of them. The prosecutors denied this and came up with forensic
evidence that showed the Birmingham Six had handled explosives shortly before the arrest.
However, in 1985, the forensic evidence was exposed by scientists as unreliable, therefore,
in 1987, an appeals judge conceded that the same results could be obtained from testing
people who recently touched playing cards or cigarette paper. They were later released
after years in prison. After seven years, a British court of appeals overturned their sentences
after serious doubts about the legitimacy of the police evidence and the treatment of the
suspects during their interrogation. (WRITE ABOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE)-helpful and
reliable when proving innocence.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller phoebegx. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.80. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
