Q10 Practice Assessment Question
AC 3.1 Examine information for validity
In terms of evidence, in order for it to be valid it needs to be collected, tested and analysed
accurately. If physical evidence goes through the correct process, it is often concrete
evidence due to it’s pinpointing and compelling nature. Linking to the brief, fibres were found
and this was extremely effective as it matched the fibres of the victim’s clothing that was
found in the hallway. Moreover, evidence i.s made valid when it is collected in a controlled
environment and if the investigator uses the chain of custody properly. The brief also shows
how thorough searches are crucial as the barristers argued that the fibres found were not
found during the first search of the suspects house, it then could be argued that this
evidence was planted by the police, and therefore deemed as invalid in terms of
circumstances as the collection of evidence may have been in improper conditions. It was
also invalid regarding accuracy as investigators were clearly not precise when searching,
Moreover, a character witness is from someone who knows the defendant well. They give an
opinion on the defendant and it must be based on personal knowledge and relevant to the
case. This is often inadmissible and it is always from someone close to the defendant,
making it more difficult for a Judge/Jury to believe them. However, evidence can als be
invalid, there is a high risk that testimonial evidence can be biassed, a character witness
stemming from opinion not facts, is arguably invalid as some prejudice could be involved. In
terms of currency, if testimonial evidence is not collected quickly after the crime, there is a
possibility a witness/victim may not be able to recall events, meaning evidence will lack
validity. Lastly, expert witnesses can provide incorrect statistics and can be based on opinion
rather than fact, and this is damaging to a case. This is seen in the Sally Clarke case, a
mother who was wrongfully convicted for the murder of her two young sons. The expert
witness, Roy Meadows claimed the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering
from cot death was a 1 in 73 million chance, however this was not properly tested and not
backed on by science peers. The figure turned out to be closer to 1 in 100, displaying Dr
Meadows was extremely invalid and inaccurate as he was later proven incorrect and his
misleading evidence led to a miscarriage of justice. Linking to the brief, a miscarriage of
justice may have also occurred as the evidence that led to a life sentence imprisonment was
arguably invalid. This was due to the fact that the evidence found in his house during the
second search, were not discovered in the first search, this suggests that investigators could
have illegally planted the evidence and this evidence would become inadmissible and
invalid, meaning his conviction was improper.
In terms of trial transcripts, the recorded record of spoken word in a courtroom and trial. This
can be invalid at times due to the circumstances, words spoken can often be muffled or
affected by the noise levels and background noise of the courtroom. In terms of accuracy,
since 2012 digital records have replaced trial transcripts which capture every spoken word at
the exact time, meaning it is more accurate. Moreover, there are risks of malfunctions in
technology as digital recordings are able to pick up low level sounds, which can disrupt any
words, this is damaging to it’s validity. However, trial transcripts are highly accurate and
valid as they are unbiased accounts of words spoken in court. Trial transcripts are accepted
