This document includes notes and information about AC3.1 within unit 3 criminology that allowed me to achieve an A grade. Here you will find information about: safe/unsafe verdicts, miscarriages of justice, just verdicts and just sentencing.
Criminology Unit 3 - AC2.4 Asses the key influence affecting the outcomes of the criminal cases
Criminology Unit 3 - AC2.5 Discuss the use of lay people
All for this textbook (33)
Written for
A/AS Level
WJEC
Criminology
Crime Scene to Courtroom (4543U3)
All documents for this subject (371)
2
reviews
By: ryanhallfc • 9 months ago
By: calleemahmood • 9 months ago
Seller
Follow
zetafeff
Reviews received
Content preview
Criminology unit 3
AC3.2 – Draw Conclusions from information
In the majority of criminal cases information/evidence used in a trial is usually high in
validity and handled correctly. Decisions regarding the verdict and sentence given to a
defendant, are made safely and appropriately in accordance with legal rules and procedures
at the time. However, occasionally there will be issues/mistakes which are prevalent during
the processes involved in a case.
Safe and unsafe verdict
A safe verdict is one which is reached based on the evidence and procedures being correctly
used or followed, meaning the verdict is one which correlates with all the evidence and
relevant facts presented. The evidence used to reach the verdict must also be admissible,
reliable and credible, meaning that it needs to pass the criteria for the Evidential Test within
the Full Code Test conducted by the CPS. Although the majority of criminal cases are result
in safe verdicts and are handled appropriately in relation to legal procedures and evidence
available at that time, there may still be issues with the process occasionally.
An example of a case which initially resulted in a safe verdict would be that of ‘The
Birmingham Six’. The Birmingham Six were charged with murder on May 12 th 1975, they
were thought to be responsible for the bombing of two pubs which resulted in 21 deaths.
One of the reasons why this case initially resulted in a safe verdict is because the judge
overseeing the trial, deemed the confessions made by 4 members of the 6 to be admissible
in court as evidence. This should not have occurred because the confessions were
improperly obtained as they were first beaten, threatened and starved beforehand,
meaning that it should have been inadmissible. In addition to this, a forensic scientist
serving as an expert within the case, stated he was certain that two of the men had
possessed traces of nitroglycerine on their hands. In 1985, a TV programme, ‘World in
Action, suggested that the solvent Skuse had used in the test for nitroglycerine may have
been the reason for the test turning positive and therefore was potentially unreliable.
Because the combination of a confession, expert witnesses and trace evidence are usually
admissible, reliable and credible, the Court of Appeal still ruled that the convictions were
safe in 1988 and dismissed the appeal made by them in 1976. Fresh evidence of police
fabrication was found in 1990 and later lead to the six men being freed, after it contradicted
the evidence provided by Skuse. on March 14th 1991, after the Court of Appeal stated that
the convictions were both unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Unsafe verdicts occur when there are issues/mistakes with the evidence or court
procedures within a case. These issues/mistakes could potentially lead to a miscarriage of
justice occurring, for example, if the evidence has not been presented or stored properly. A
wrongful conviction such as: one that was a result of a judge’s mistake during the trial, or if
the verdict was unclear is an example of an unsafe verdict. This would be due to the fact
that the trial process would have been carried out incorrectly, in cases which end with an
unsafe verdict a conviction is usually overturned. Although the majority of criminal cases are
result in safe verdicts and are handled appropriately in relation to legal procedures and
evidence available at that time, there may still be issues with the process occasionally
, Criminology unit 3
An example of a case which had an unsafe verdict was that of Sally Clark, who was wrongly
convicted for the murder of her two sons which died from SIDS. During the trial, the jury
was not presented with crucial evidence within the case. Microbiological tests were
conducted on Harry’s (the second child which died) blood, body tissue and spinal fluid, these
tests revealed that there were potentially toxic bacteria prevalent in his body. However,
these test results were not presented to the jury as neither the prosecution or the defence
were aware that they existed. In addition to this photographic evidence relating to the
children who died were deemed to have unsatisfactory quality and therefore was not able
to be used in court as it was inadmissible. Another factor which meant that there was an
unsafe verdict within this case, is that the inaccurate evidence/statistic provided by an
expert Sir Roy Meadow were allowed to be used within the trial. This statistic was that the
chances of both infants dying to SIDS was 73 million to one, when the true number was
actually 60 to 1, because once you have suffered one COT death, the chances of another
significantly increase.
Miscarriages of Justice
A miscarriage of justice involves the conviction and subsequent punishment of a person for
a crime they did not commit. The most notorious cases often involve the person having
served a prolonged jail sentence. There have been numerous miscarriages of justice within
our legal system.
Miscarriages of justice are an example of a wrongful conviction. A miscarriage of justice
occurs when a defendant is convicted for a crime because they were suspected of being
guilty, even though the person did not commit the crime and was actually innocent. This can
happen if there are issues regarding the evidence or trial processes in a case. Miscarriages of
justice are usually revealed after the defendant has made an appeal against the verdict they
have received and new evidence arises, proving their innocence. There have been many
miscarriages of justice within the legal system.
An example of a case where a miscarriage of justice took place was that of Stefan Kiszko. On
October 15th 1975, Stefan Kiszko was wrongfully convicted to life imprisonment for the
murder of Lesley Molseed. This was mainly the result of incorrect police procedures and
Kiszko providing a false confession which he shortly retracted. During the investigation,
police took 6000 statements from individuals within the Rochdale area. Within these
statements included that of 4 girls who had stated that there was a man indecently exposing
himself in the recent weeks prior to the murder, 2 of these girls had identified Kiszko as the
offender. Kizsko possessed an intellectual disability which resulted in him acting immaturely.
Because of this, police chose to ignore other leads that would have shifted the course of the
investigation, as they believed kiszko to fit the profile of the offender provided to them. One
of these leads being unused material, which included a statement of a taxi driver admitting
it was them that was unintentionally indecently exposed himself to two girls. If police had
not been biased and pursued this path during the investigation, Kiszko would most likely
have not been convicted and the miscarriage of justice would not have occurred as this was
the initial event that attracted police to Kiszko. If police would have known this his suspicion
would have been eliminated and time could have been spent investigating Ronald Cotton
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
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
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
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 zetafeff. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
