These are my answers that I used to achieve a near perfect 95/100 marks on the Year 13 Unit 3 Criminology controlled assessment. Of course, I changed it as needed during the exam, but these were the backbones of my answers. This resource covers AC 3.1. I initially found it difficult to imagine how ...
hey! thanks for your review i'm so glad these documents helped you out :) you've probably done unit three by now but i hope you're happy with how it went!!!!!!
By: scarlettlacex • 9 months ago
By: rin4 • 8 months ago
hiya! thanks for leaving a review... probably already done unit three by now but i hope it went well if you did do it! :)
By: bimaria325 • 9 months ago
By: rin4 • 8 months ago
hi, thanks for your review, you've probably done your unit three by now but i'm sure you did great :)!!
By: amrita90 • 10 months ago
By: rin4 • 10 months ago
wishing you the best of luck for unit three you'll do amazing !!!
By: malabhogal • 10 months ago
its helpful
By: rin4 • 10 months ago
hiya i'm so happy you found this useful! thanks for leaving a review and good luck with unit three :)
Show more reviews
Seller
Follow
rin4
Reviews received
Content preview
AC 3.1: Examine Information for Validity
EVIDENCE
Before proceeding with a prosecution, the CPS requires that evidence must be credible, reliable, and
admissible in court. Credible evidence means that the evidence is believable within the given context,
and that it seems reasonable that what is being said or shown could be true. Reliable evidence is
accurate and authentic evidence, which is consistent throughout the whole case. Admissible evidence is
evidence which is considered acceptable or valid. It has the right to be admitted into the official body of
evidence related to the case.
Testimonies as evidence can be divided into eye-witness testimonies (EWTs) or expert/specialist
testimonies. EWTs come from people who claim to have observed the crime. They could be considered
unreliable, as Loftus found that in crimes where a weapon was involved, the witness showed a ‘weapon
focus’. This meant that they did not form a detailed memory of other aspects of the crime, such as the
offender’s face. However, EWTs may be reliable because they give police a lead to go off – even if the
EWT isn’t entirely accurate. They could be accurate if the police interview the eyewitness effectively
using the ‘cognitive interview’, and EWTs are weighty in court, meaning that if they corroborate
evidence, they could be considered reliable and help deliver the desired verdict.
Expert/specialist testimonies hold a higher status in court than other witness testimonies, as juries may
consider the opinion of an expert to be particularly credible. However, expert opinions may lead to a
miscarriage of justice when they give inaccurate evidence, such as passing an opinion as scientific fact.
An example of an expert testimony resulting in a miscarriage of justice is the case of Sally Clark. Clark
was given two life sentences in 1999 for the murder of her two infant sons. In court, Sir Roy Meadow
gave evidence that the likelihood of both deaths being accidental in a family like hers was around “one
in 73 million”. This was later found to be grossly inaccurate, and Clark was later released in January
2003. This prompted reviews of hundreds of other cases, such as Donna Anthony, Angela Cannings and
Trupti Patel, who were all acquitted in the following years because Meadow had testified in all their
trials too.
TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Trial transcripts are the exact written record of every word said in court using DARTS (Digital Audio
Recording Transcription Storage system). Trial transcripts can be considered useful because not only can
they be used as evidence in an appeal, but they can also be used by the parole board when considering
a prisoner’s application to be released. Due to being highly accurate and unbiased accounts because of
DARTS, trial transcripts can be considered valid. However, there is always a risk of the machine
malfunctioning or words being misheard/unrecorded.
The case of Barry George is an example of trial transcripts being used, after he was sent to prison for
eight years for the murder of Jill Dando. In 2007, George appealed when a witness placed armed police
officers at the scene of his arrest – potentially explaining the 1/1000cm of gunshot residue that was
found in George’s coat pocket and initially secured his conviction. In George’s 2008 retrial, trial
transcripts from the appeal were listened to. The witness statements of seeing armed police helped the
jury decide that the gunshot residue in his coat was ultimately not his own. It also revealed that
witnesses were unsure whether they truly saw George near the scene.
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 rin4. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.41. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
