Summary
Summary criminology unit 3 AC 2.2-3.2 example exam responses
- Course
- Institution
example exam responses for AC 2.2-3.2 for WJEC unit 3
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
carabotfield
Content preview
2.2 describe the trial processes:Pre-trial matters are decisions that the magistrates court takes before a
trial. This includes pre-trial review, which outlines points of law. For
example, it decides whether evidence will be admissible or not. Before a
trial, the defendant is read their charge, and from that they must decide
whether they are going to plead guilty or not guilty. In the cases where the
defendant pleads guilty, the magistrates must consider mitigating factors
which helps them decide whether to pass the sentence immediately or
postpone the sentencing until legal reports are made, such as by a
probation officer. The type of criminal offence will impact where it can be
tried. Indictable offences (serious offences such as murder) must be tried
in a Crown Court by a judge and usually a jury, but an initial hearing will
usually take place in a magistrate’s court by magistrates.
Summary offences are minor criminal offences and will be tried in a
magistrate’s court. Triable either way offences can be heard in either the
magistrates court or crown court, there is higher sentencing power in
crown court but a greater chance of acquittal by jury then trial in
magistrates’ court. A defendant and the prosecution may form a plea
bargain, which involves an agreement between both parties for the
defendant to plead guilty. There are three types of plea bargains that can
be made, being that of charge bargaining, whereby a defendant admits
guilt to a less serious charge for purpose of receiving a lighter sentence.
As well as court bargaining, being to plead guilty to one charge in return
for the others being dropped, and sentence bargaining, where the
offender pleads guilty to the original charge in order to receive a more
lenient sentence. Plea bargaining can avoid a lengthily trial, however it
must be noted that it might coerce defendants to plead guilty, even if they
are innocent. Bail is the temporary release of a suspect before trial, as
section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 declares that all individuals are innocent
until proven guilty, everyone has the right to bail. This is unconditional
bail, imposing no other conditions than to attend court, however, a
custody officer can refuse bail if a suspect’s name and address is
questionable. A conditional bail would be used for these individuals,
whereby they must agree to the conditions proposed, such as to hand
over their passport and report to the police station everyday. If the court
refuses bail, such as because they suspect that the offender is likely to
breach conditions, the suspect can be remanded in custody until trial.
Following a court case, the defendant may have the right to appeal. This
depends on the type of court that handed out the conviction and whether
it is the conviction or sentence that is being appealed. If sentencing was in
a magistrates’ court, the defendant should maintain the automatic right to
appeal are against their conviction (if they pleaded guilty) and sentence.
The re-trial would take place with a judge in a Crown Court. There are no
automatic rights to appeal against a Crown Court decision – instead, a
Judge must decide whether it is permissible for a retrial to occur, it is often
the case that new and substantial evidence must come to light for this to
occur.
,2.3 understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal
cases:
For evidence to be used in court, it must be reliable, relevant, and
admissible.
To be reliable, evidence must be credible (believable by the average
person), authentic (genuine) and accurate (correct). For instance, the
original Damilola Taylor case collapsed when the witness was deemed to
be lying, therefore not credible, and Sally Clark was granted an appeal,
with her conviction ultimately overturned, due to her original conviction
being based on inaccurate expert witness testimony from Prof. Sir Roy
Meadow. To be admissible, evidence should have been obtained legally
and properly; obtaining the evidence should not require violating
someone’s human rights, breaking the law, or using entrapment. S.78 of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 states evidence obtained
through entrapment can be excluded from a case. In some cases, illegally
or improperly obtained evidence is allowed, however, such as if the
probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Therefore, if the police are
unable to obtain admissible evidence, they can secure a conviction by
inducing others to break the law, which is known as acting as ‘agent
provocateurs’. The law does not allow entrapment, but under the s.78
PACE there is no rule that requires improperly obtained evidence to be
excluded and the Judge has discretion to permit evidence if it will uncover
the truth. However, under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human
Rights, defendants have the right to a fair trial and can argue that the
entrapment was unfair. The judge/magistrate will have to determine
whether the evidence will be helpful in establishing the truth or if it will be
harmful to the case. They can exclude the evidence and deem it
inadmissible if it was obtained unfairly and will have an effect on the
fairness of the trial. A real-life example of this is the case of Colin Stagg, in
which Stagg was accused of murdering Rachel Nickell but with no
evidence supporting this. The police conducted Operation Edzell, in which
an undercover police officer feigned romantic interest in Stagg and
consistently tried to manipulate him into confessing to murder, which he
refused to do. The evidence was dismissed because it was entrapment
and the prosecution withdraw its case, Stagg was acquitted and
compensated for the experience. In addition, the defendant has the right
to remain silent, although a jury may draw inferences about a defendant’s
guilt if they remain silent during police questioning and if they fail to
testify in court (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994). The jury
cannot, however, rely solely on these inferences in convicting – the
prosecution must supply other evidence. in the case of Condron vs UK,
Condron was on trial for supplying heroin, with intent to supply. Condron
was advised by his solicitor to remain silent when being questioned by
police because he was suffering from heroin withdrawal at the time of
questioning and his solicitor did not want him to say something
incriminating or untruthful because of this. During the trial, the judge gave
the jury the option of inferring guilt from his silence, and Condron was
found guilty, even though he provided answers and explanations in court
,during the trial. Condron complained that this was unfair, but this was
dismissed because here was other evidence alongside his silence and the
jury was satisfied that his silence could be attributed to Condron being
unable to adequately answer the prosecutions questions in a way that
would hold up in cross examination. In addition, the prosecution must
disclose all evidence to the defence, including anything they do not intend
to present in court. Disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and
Investigations Act 1996 ensures that the trial is fair because the
prosecution must disclose all documents that they will use in trial, no
matter if it will strengthen the defence or weaken prosecution. The
defence will make a statement that requires the persecution to disclose
evidence and should contain the nature of the defence, the matters of the
fact that the defence will challenge and why, the matters of fact that the
defence will rely on, and any other relevant points of law. In the case of
Sally Clark, the prosecution failed to disclose the evidence of a
microbiological report that suggested that her second son died of natural
causes. This instance of failure to properly disclose evidence also being
seen in the Allan case (2017) where his rape trial was halted because it
emerged that police had examined a computer disc with evidence the
alleged victim had pestered Allan for sex, but they had failed to disclose
this evidence to the defence team. Where police do withhold evidence,
this can be classed as a criminal offence in itself: perverting the course of
justice. Sometimes, however, a public interest immunity certificate can be
sought from the court which means sensitive materials that pose a risk to
public interest (e.g. outing an undercover police officer or creating a
national security risk) do not have to be disclosed. Finally, hearsay
evidence is not generally admissible. This is ‘second-hand’ evidence – it is
something said out of court to a witness appearing in court which the
witness’s wishes to rely on as fact as part of their own evidence. There
are exceptions, however, meaning hearsay evidence is admissible if: all
parties (prosecution, defence, and judge) agree; the judge rules it’s in the
interest of justice; common law permits; or a witness is absent, abroad,
dead, unfit to testify, or has disappeared.
2.4 assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal
cases:
Expert witnesses are often viewed as authoritative and credible sources
of information due to their expertise in a particular field. Their testimony
can carry considerable weight with the jury, especially when complex
scientific or medical evidence is involved. Jurors may rely heavily on
expert testimony to understand technical aspects of a case or to assess
the credibility of other evidence presented. As such, expert witnesses can
significantly shape the narrative of a trial and influence the jury's decision-
making process. Sir Roy Meadows, a paediatrician, provided expert
testimony in the trial of Sally Clark, who was wrongly convicted of
murdering her two infant sons. Meadows asserted that the probability of
two infant siblings dying of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in an
affluent family was extremely low, leading the jury to conclude that Clark
, must have intentionally smothered her children. However, Meadows'
testimony was later discredited, as it relied on flawed statistical reasoning
and misrepresented the probability of multiple SIDS deaths in a family. His
assertion of "cot death syndrome" contributed to the wrongful
conviction of Sally Clark and the miscarriage of justice in her case. While
expert witnesses can provide valuable insights and expertise in criminal
cases, their influence on the jury must be carefully scrutinized to ensure
accuracy and impartiality. In cases like the Sally Clark trial, where expert
testimony is central to the prosecution's case, it is essential for the court
to critically evaluate the methodology and reliability of the expert's
analysis to prevent wrongful convictions. The misuse or misrepresentation
of expert testimony, as exemplified by Sir Roy Meadows in the Sally Clark
case, highlights the dangers of allowing unchecked expert influence in the
courtroom. It underscores the need for rigorous standards and oversight in
the selection and presentation of expert witnesses to safeguard the
integrity of the judicial process. In conclusion, expert witnesses can
significantly influence the outcomes of criminal cases through their
testimony, particularly in cases involving technical or scientific evidence.
However, their influence must be balanced with scrutiny and scepticism to
ensure that their testimony is accurate, reliable, and impartial.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in affecting the outcomes of criminal
cases, with judges wielding significant influence over verdicts and trial
proceedings. Judges have the authority to direct juries on points of law
and provide guidance on the interpretation of evidence. Their instructions
can shape the jury's understanding of the case and influence the final
verdict. In cases where there is no jury, judges solely determine the
verdict based on the evidence presented and their interpretation of the
law, making their influence even more pronounced. Judges possess broad
powers to manage trial proceedings, including admitting or excluding
evidence, ruling on legal issues, and sentencing convicted individuals.
These powers allow judges to significantly impact the outcome of a case
and the administration of justice. In jury trials, judges also have the
authority to give directions to the jury, such as summing up the evidence
and providing legal instructions, which can shape the jury's decision-
making process. In cases where there is no jury, judges have sole
responsibility for determining guilt or innocence based on the evidence
and legal arguments presented. This places a greater burden on judges to
ensure fair and impartial adjudication. Jury-less trials may mitigate the
potential for perverse decisions or judicial bias, as judges are expected to
apply legal principles objectively and without external influences.
However, concerns about judicial bias still exist and must be addressed to
maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Class and gender biases
can influence judicial decisions, with marginalized groups often facing
disproportionate treatment in the criminal justice system. This being as a
large percentage of judges are male, middle class and well educated,
making it difficult for them to relate to the suspect who is often working
class and exposed to poverty. Differing strongly from the jury, being
randomly selected, and supposedly consisting of individuals derived from
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 carabotfield. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $20.54. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
62890 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now