100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
WJEC Unit 3 Criminology AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information £3.89
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. WJEC
  4.  
  5. Criminology
  6.  
  7. Crime Scene to Courtroom

Exam (elaborations)

WJEC Unit 3 Criminology AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information

1 review
 7 purchases

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

Preview 2 out of 5  pages

Document information

  • September 10, 2023
  • 5
  • 2022/2023
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

Connected book

book image

Book Title:

Author(s):

  • Edition:
  • ISBN:
  • Edition:

More summaries for

All for this textbook (144)

Written for

All documents for this subject (392)

1  review

review-writer-avatar

By: lexiekenny666 • 1 year ago

reply-writer-avatar

By: studyinqpeachy • 1 year ago

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

Seller

avatar-seller
studyinqpeachy

Reviews received

Content preview

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.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

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 studyinqpeachy. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £3.89. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66184 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£3.89  7x  sold
  • (1)
Add to cart
Added