3.2 - Draw conclusions from information
Unsafe Verdicts and Miscarriages of Justice:
A miscarriage of justice is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as ‘a situation in
which someone is punished by the law courts for a crime that they have not commited’.
If the Court of Appeal declares a case to be a miscarriage of justice, they will order a
re-trial. An unsafe verdict is a wrongful conviction, and it may occur if it is not fully
evidence if the defendant is innocent or guilty. If this occurs, the conviction will be
overturned as courts have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt for a defendant to be
found guilty. Multiple factors may cause an unsafe verdict, such as the judge misdirecting
the jury or the failure to present relevant evidence. Link to brief
An unsafe verdict occurred in the case of Stephen Downing. Stephen Downing
was convicted of the murder of Wendy Sewell in 1974, when he was aged 17. He was
taken to the police station and questioned for nine hours without a solicitor. He was
coerced into signing a confession, despite having the reading age of an 11 year old. The
court was misled by the forensic scientist, who testified that the blood found on
Downing’s clothes could have only been there if he commited the crime. He was later
found not guilty, after serving 27 years in prison. Therefore, influences such as the lack
of access to a solicitor and the misleading from the expert witness, all led to a
miscarriage of justice.
Just Verdicts
A just verdict is a fair or impartial judgment, and it does justice to the facts of the
case. This means that guilty parties are found guilty, and the innocent remain innocent.
In 2003, the double jeopardy law was changed, so that those who had been acquitted of
an offence could be prosecuted again. The original idea behind this law was to prevent
an abuse of state power, so an individual could not be repeatedly retried to fit a political
agenda. This law was changed after a campaign by Ann Ming, whose daughter, Julie
Hogg, was murdered by Billy Dunlop. The campaign subsequently led to the overturning
of the double jeopardy law.
In the campaign for change conducted by Ann Ming, she demanded for the double
jeopardy law to be overturned. This was because after the original trial of Billy Dunlop
for the murder of Julie Hogg, where he was found not guilty, he later publically admitted
he murdered her. Due to the law, Dunlop could not be retried. After relentlessly
campaigning, the law changed in 2005 and by 2006, Dunlop was convicted of the murder
of Julie. Therefore, a change in legislation then led to the just verdict of Billy Dunlop.
Jury Equity and Jury Nullification
Jury equity is when the jury’s verdict reflects their conscience, rather than directly
applying the law. Jury nullification can be seen when a verdict comes from the deliberate
rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law, and this may occur if the jury wants to
send political messages. The judge may have a contradictory perspective of the law, so
Unsafe Verdicts and Miscarriages of Justice:
A miscarriage of justice is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as ‘a situation in
which someone is punished by the law courts for a crime that they have not commited’.
If the Court of Appeal declares a case to be a miscarriage of justice, they will order a
re-trial. An unsafe verdict is a wrongful conviction, and it may occur if it is not fully
evidence if the defendant is innocent or guilty. If this occurs, the conviction will be
overturned as courts have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt for a defendant to be
found guilty. Multiple factors may cause an unsafe verdict, such as the judge misdirecting
the jury or the failure to present relevant evidence. Link to brief
An unsafe verdict occurred in the case of Stephen Downing. Stephen Downing
was convicted of the murder of Wendy Sewell in 1974, when he was aged 17. He was
taken to the police station and questioned for nine hours without a solicitor. He was
coerced into signing a confession, despite having the reading age of an 11 year old. The
court was misled by the forensic scientist, who testified that the blood found on
Downing’s clothes could have only been there if he commited the crime. He was later
found not guilty, after serving 27 years in prison. Therefore, influences such as the lack
of access to a solicitor and the misleading from the expert witness, all led to a
miscarriage of justice.
Just Verdicts
A just verdict is a fair or impartial judgment, and it does justice to the facts of the
case. This means that guilty parties are found guilty, and the innocent remain innocent.
In 2003, the double jeopardy law was changed, so that those who had been acquitted of
an offence could be prosecuted again. The original idea behind this law was to prevent
an abuse of state power, so an individual could not be repeatedly retried to fit a political
agenda. This law was changed after a campaign by Ann Ming, whose daughter, Julie
Hogg, was murdered by Billy Dunlop. The campaign subsequently led to the overturning
of the double jeopardy law.
In the campaign for change conducted by Ann Ming, she demanded for the double
jeopardy law to be overturned. This was because after the original trial of Billy Dunlop
for the murder of Julie Hogg, where he was found not guilty, he later publically admitted
he murdered her. Due to the law, Dunlop could not be retried. After relentlessly
campaigning, the law changed in 2005 and by 2006, Dunlop was convicted of the murder
of Julie. Therefore, a change in legislation then led to the just verdict of Billy Dunlop.
Jury Equity and Jury Nullification
Jury equity is when the jury’s verdict reflects their conscience, rather than directly
applying the law. Jury nullification can be seen when a verdict comes from the deliberate
rejection of evidence or refusal to apply the law, and this may occur if the jury wants to
send political messages. The judge may have a contradictory perspective of the law, so
