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 2.3. This detailed answer is well-developed after t...
WJEC criminology unit 2 written exam paper and awnsers
AC 2.4 Assess key influences affecting the outcome of criminal cases
Ac 2.3 Understanding the rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Alles voor dit studieboek
(32)
Geschreven voor
A/AS Level
WJEC
Criminology
Crime Scene to Courtroom
Alle documenten voor dit vak (371)
9
beoordelingen
Door: mariuscaraman56 • 5 maanden geleden
Door: chadbuzz • 7 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 6 maanden geleden
hiya :) thanks for leaving a review I'm sending the absolute best of luck for unit three!!!! if you have any questions feel free to ask :)
Door: pavandhanda2006 • 8 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 7 maanden geleden
heya !! it's great that you found 2.3 useful -- thanks for leaving a review and good luck with unit three:) (or hope it went well if you've already done it !!)
Door: amrita90 • 8 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 8 maanden geleden
i'm so pleased that 2.3 helped you out - good luck with unit three :) !!!!
Door: getleezaj • 9 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 9 maanden geleden
hi, sorry to hear that you didn't find 2.3 helpful! :( i'd be super grateful if you could message me to let me know what about it you didn't find useful :) best of luck in all future exams :)
Door: esssaaa • 10 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 9 maanden geleden
hi, sorry to hear that you didn't find 2.3 helpful! :( i'd really appreciate it if you could let me know what about it you didnt find helpful :) best of luck in all your future exams !!
Door: h15 • 10 maanden geleden
Door: rin4 • 10 maanden geleden
thanks for reviewing, glad you found it helpful! good luck with unit three!
Bekijk meer beoordelingen
Verkoper
Volgen
rin4
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
AC 2.3: Understand Rules in Relation to the Use of Evidence in Criminal Cases
Not all evidence can be used in court because to be accepted it must be reliable, admissible, and
relevant to the case.
For evidence to be considered reliable, it must be credible, authentic, and accurate.
To be credible, the evidence must be believable from a reasonable source. For example, was the
witness telling the truth? However, honesty is not enough because prevailing conditions may make
the statement impossible to be true – for example, night-time might have obscured the witness’s
vision if the crime took place in the dark.
To be authentic, the evidence must be genuine. As an example, a document presented as evidence
cannot be authentic if it is a forgery.
For evidence to be accurate, it must be correct in its details. For example, is the evidence of an
expert supported by the rest of the scientific community? The case of Sir Roy Meadow is a key
example of when this does not happen, with his testimonies in court ultimately leading to him being
struck off the medical register. In court, Meadow testified against several women who lost their
babies. In Donna Anthony’s trial, he said that the chances of two babies dying in a family like hers
was around 1 in a million, leading to her being wrongly jailed. He also said that in Sally Clark’s family
the likelihood was “one in 73 million.” Clark was also wrongfully jailed. In Trupti Patel’s trial,
Meadow suggested that “two cot deaths is suspicious, three is murder,” although she was cleared of
all charges. Due to Meadow’s status, his testimonies seemed credible, but were in fact inaccurate.
Evidence must be considered relevant if it is to be used in court. The law splits evidence as being one
of two types of facts in a trial: ‘facts in issue’, otherwise known as ‘principal facts’, and ‘relevant
facts.’ Facts in issue are the matters in a case that the court has to decide about. The prosecution
attempts to prove these facts, whereas the defence attempt to disprove them. Relevant facts are
facts needed to prove or disprove the facts in issue and cannot be argued with.
Admissibility of evidence refers to whether it is allowed in court by the judge or magistrate. Evidence
can be inadmissible due to it having been collected improperly (such as through entrapments or
‘sting’ operations) or collected illegally (such as being discovered in a search without a warrant or
because of torture.) However, the court can accept improperly or illegally obtained evidence as
admissible if it will lead to a correct verdict. This is an example of ‘Probative vs Prejudicial,’ in which
it is considered more important to get a guilty verdict than to have a fair trial.
The case of Colin Stagg can be applied to both the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Following
the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police focused their investigations on Colin Stagg. No forensic
evidence linked him to the murder, but the police created ‘Operation Edzell’ - a honeytrap to elicit a
confession from him. However, Stagg never confessed. In 1994, Mr Justice Ognall excluded all
honeytrap evidence, ruling that the police had shown “excessive zeal” and “deceptive conduct” of
the grossest kind. The evidence was inadmissible due to being obtained improperly in a honeytrap
and through the police attempting to coerce Stagg, and none of what was collected could be
considered relevant to the case as a result.
Also playing a part in whether evidence can be used in court is pre-trial silence and bad character.
Pre-trial silence refers to the right to stay silent. However, in a criminal investigation, “no comment”
can be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Proof of bad character can also be admissible in court because
legal sanctions and documents are considered admissible. However, ‘contaminated’ evidence lacking
officiality is inadmissible.
All rules regarding disclosure come from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Disclosure ensures a fair trial
by allowing both the prosecution and defence to be fully informed of all evidence and information –
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 €5,10. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
