100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
WJEC Unit 3 Criminology AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information $5.05
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. WJEC
  4.  
  5. Criminology
  6.  
  7. Crime Scene to Courtroom

Tentamen (uitwerkingen)

WJEC Unit 3 Criminology AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information

1 beoordeling
 6 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Crime Scene to Courtroom
  • Instelling
  • WJEC
  • Boek
  • WJEC Level 3 Applied Certificate and Diploma Criminology

WJEC Unit 3 Criminology AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information Received an A for this exam. For personal use only, do not copy this work

Voorbeeld 2 van de 5  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 10 september 2023
  • 5
  • 2022/2023
  • Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
  • Vragen en antwoorden

Onderwerpen

  • wjec
  • criminology
  • unit 3
  • crime scene to courtroom
  • controlled assessment
  • case study
  • exam notes
  • 8 hour exam
  • evaluate
  • ac 32
  • evidence
  • coursework
  • a level
  • criminologica
  • draw conclusions from information
  • exam

Gekoppeld boek

book image

Titel boek:

Auteur(s):

  • Uitgave:
  • ISBN:
  • Druk:

Geschreven voor

  • A/AS Level
  • WJEC
  • Criminology
  • Crime Scene to Courtroom
Alle documenten voor dit vak (388)

1  beoordeling

review-writer-avatar

Door: lexiekenny666 • 1 jaar geleden

reply-writer-avatar

Door: studyinqpeachy • 1 jaar geleden

thanks for the review, is there anything that could improve the document?

Verkoper

avatar-seller
studyinqpeachy

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information

Safe verdicts
Safe verdicts are verdicts that are reached based on safe, reliable evidence, and that bring a
fair and consistent trial. The evidence must be reliable, admissible and credible in order to
justify a verdict. The evidence must pass the tests of the CPS, which include the full code
test (the evidential test or the public interest test), to be able to go to court. Furthermore, to
ensure that a verdict is safe, all of the court procedures must be followed while the trial is
taking place. This could include things such as: having the prosecution and defence be
waiting in separate areas to avoid intimidation, all of the evidence is prepared and is ready,
having the appropriate witnesses/expert witnesses present, etc. If both of these factors have
not been fulfilled, then a case may have an unsafe verdict. This may occur if there are
problems with the evidence or the trial itself. If a defendant feels that a case has had an
unsafe verdict, then they may appeal against a ‘guilty’ verdict. Miscarriages of justice can
happen as a result of an unsafe verdict happening, which can mean that the innocent get
wrongfully sentenced. If a defendant suspects that there have been defects within a trial, but
may cause miscarriages of justice. This could be due to many factors such: the jury being
misdirected by the jury, mistakes made in legal rulings or evidence, failing to call relevant
witnesses, tampering or intimation amongst the jury meaning there are irregularities. Another
type of unsafe verdict includes wrongful convictions, and these are where the trial process
has been followed incorrectly, and this could include whereby the guilt or innocence of a
defendant is inconclusive.

A case in which an unsafe verdict was reached was the case of Barry George and the
murder of Jill Dando. It was argued that the case had an unsafe verdict as the evidence that
was found on George was not significant enough to fully prove his guilt. For example, the
microscopic amount of gunpowder residue found in his pocket was only a small piece of
evidence that was used to convict him, and this highlights the fact that his verdict could have
been unsafe as the evidence was not very reliable and was not enough to prove that he had
killed Dando. The verdict for this case was ruled unsafe as there was not enough evidence
and the fact that the evidence shouldn’t have been admissible. At the retrial, George was
found not guilty. I can conclude from this case study that it is very important that cases have
two underlying factors correct to ensure that cases are more likely to be safe, and this
includes having reliable and admissible evidence, and ensuring that the court procedure is
always followed correctly. If these are not followed, then this could lead to miscarriages of
justice.

In the brief, it states that the forensics team failed to secure the evidence properly in bags.
This arguably can prove how Mr Allen did not have a safe verdict as this could have led to
the evidence being contaminated as it was not secured properly, leading to the unsafe
verdict. The fact that the evidence was contaminated means that the verdict could not have
been safe because the evidence would not have been reliable and credible. Furthermore,
the fact that Mr Allen was not allowed to have a solicitor present with him in the first interview
with police could have also made the verdict unsafe as this could have meant that Mr Allen
could have given wrongful confessions while being questioned, and could have felt
pressured or intimidated to speak about the case, even though he had no legal help to aid
him in the questioning. Therefore, I can conclude that Mr Allen could have been at a great

, risk of having an unsafe verdict as the evidence was clearly not reliable and credible as it
was contaminated, and so this could not fairly show his innocence or guilt.

Just verdicts
Just verdicts are verdicts that are truthful, deserved and safe. These verdicts are lawful and
are given in proper accordance with the case severity. The verdict of a case ensures that an
offender is properly charged and sentenced, and ensures that the victims feel that justice
has been served. Just verdicts aim to ensure that the guilty are charged and the innocent
are proven to be innocent using reliable and admissible evidence.

Just verdicts have not always been produced in the criminal justice system however, and
there have been times where unjust verdicts have been made, as with the double jeopardy
rule. Double jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same case, and
once they have been acquitted of a crime, they are unable to be tried again for the same
case, even if there was new compelling evidence found, or if the individual later confessed to
the crime. The double jeopardy rule was abolished in 2003. In the case of Billy Dunlop, he
was tried and acquitted for the murder of Julie Hogg. After the trial had finished, he had
admitted to murdering her. Ann Ming, a relative of Julie Hogg, campaigned for the double
jeopardy law to be changed to have Dunlopp tried again. Similarly, in the case of Stephen
Lawrence, the Machperson report called for the double jeopardy rule to be abolished for this
case. The law was changed to allow second prosecutions for serious cases with new
compelling evidence, and this was put into force in 2003 by the Criminal Justice Act. This
meant that the people who killed Stephen Lawerence, Garry Dobson and David Norris could
be retried for the murder, and this was based on new evidence that included fibres and DNA
evidence. The directors of the public prosecutions were also in favour of this case being
re-trialed as it was much in the public interest, and there had been some misconduct found
amongst the police that had found that they had been incompetent and racist. I can conclude
that the abolishment of the double jeopardy law made it better for victims trying to see justice
for offenders not receiving sentences, or too lenient sentences.

If a jury on a case finds that a sentence may not be morally right for a case, or that the law
seems unjust and too harsh, the jury is able to use jury equity to bring a just verdict to the
case. This involves going against the law and choosing a more morally just verdict to ensure
that the offender receives a just and fair sentence. Jury equity was used in the case of R v
Owen, whereby the defendant's son was killed by a drunk driver, and the father (the
defendant) murdered the drunk driver to take justice into his own hands. The drunk driver
should not have been driving as he was drunk, blind in one eye, and the truck he was driving
was not insured and not roadworthy. Owen was clearly guilty as he had murdered the man,
however the jury was able to use jury equity to acquit the man as the jury had understood his
need to seek justice, and the jury even congratulated him. Another case where jury equity
was used was the case of the runaway slaves in the US in the 1850s. The Fugitive Slaves
Act meant that slaves could be recaptured and returned back to their owners. Most juries in
these cases thought that this was morally wrong and slaves were regularly acquitted. From
these cases, I can conclude that just verdicts can be reached when jury equity is used
correctly, and it can mean that innocent people are acquitted by the justice system and are
not wrongfully sentenced for an offence.

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper studyinqpeachy. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $5.05. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 69052 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis
$5.05  6x  verkocht
  • (1)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd