These are my answers that I used to achieve a near perfect 95/100 marks on the Year 13 Unit 3 Criminology controlled assessment. Of course, I changed it as needed during the exam, but these were the backbones of my answers. This resource covers AC 3.1. I initially found it difficult to imagine how ...
hey! thanks for your review i'm so glad these documents helped you out :) you've probably done unit three by now but i hope you're happy with how it went!!!!!!
Door: scarlettlacex • 9 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 8 maanden geleden
hiya! thanks for leaving a review... probably already done unit three by now but i hope it went well if you did do it! :)
Door: bimaria325 • 9 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 8 maanden geleden
hi, thanks for your review, you've probably done your unit three by now but i'm sure you did great :)!!
Door: amrita90 • 10 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden
wishing you the best of luck for unit three you'll do amazing !!!
Door: malabhogal • 10 maanden geleden
its helpful
Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden
hiya i'm so happy you found this useful! thanks for leaving a review and good luck with unit three :)
Bekijk meer beoordelingen
Verkoper
Volgen
rin4
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
AC 3.1: Examine Information for Validity
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.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper rin4. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,14. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
