A* model answers for WJEC Criminology Unit 3 AC3.1.
44 views 0 purchase
Course
Crime Scene to Courtroom
Institution
WJEC
WJEC Criminology Unit 3 AC3.1 model notes and answers. This document includes model answers to the AC3.1 question in the Unit 3 exam for criminology, that allowed me to achieve an overall A* in the exam! I hope it helps you do the same :)
AC3.1 Examine information for validity. (15marks)
- Linking to brief consistently!!! examine evidence for bias, opinion, circumstances,
currency and accuracy. at least 3 maybe 4
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.
MEDIA
The media can create a moral panic, such as the way it did with the Mods vs Rockers
following a small fight on Clacton pier. Because there wasn’t much news to report, the media
exaggerated the fight, asking the public when the next would be and claiming that it would
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 aaiilex3. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.36. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
