LEARNER ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
A young female aged approximately 20 to 25 years of age was found dead in a local park; she had
been the victim of a frenzied attack. Her body was discovered around 10pm by a member of the
public walking his dog, who used his mobile phone to take photos of the victim. He then rang his
friend, a journalist on a local paper to tell him what he had discovered; he then rang the police. Within
30 minutes of the report, CID officers, scenes of crime officers (CSI) and journalists were at the
scene. The police, keen to involve the press in catching the killer, allowed a journalist from a local
paper access to the area to take photos of the crime scene. Intense pressure was put on the police
from the outset to catch the killer. The local and national press demanded daily press conferences for
updates with access to family members.
Initial investigation of the scene resulted in officers finding several footprints and in addition a witness
also came forward whilst the police were in the park. He told officers there that he had seen a man
acting suspiciously, earlier in the evening near the park. Notes of the interview were written up in a
police notebook. Two days after the murder, a member of the public came forward with a red scarf
that he claimed to have found in the park on the night in question. Following a Crime Watch appeal
two weeks after the murder, a second eye witness came forward. This person claimed to have seen a
man acting suspiciously on the night in question.
At the outset the police, convinced that the killer would be known to them, checked police databases
for known offenders living in the area. They also enlisted the help of a criminal psychologist to create
an offender profile of the killer. This led them to arrest a local man, Gareth Hughes, who matched the
offender profile and has previous convictions against women. He is also known to frequent the park.
Hughes was kept in custody for three days, where he asserted that he was abroad at the time of the
murder; he refused to give any other comments during the interview. With no forensic evidence linking
him to the crime, he was released on bail.
Gareth Hughes attracted major media interest. This led to him becoming paranoid and acting
strangely. This behaviour served to further convince the police that he was the killer. To build a case
against Hughes, they deployed a team of officers to befriend him using Facebook. This was in an
attempt to make him confess.
Several months later Hughes was re-arrested and re-interviewed. He again refused to comment.
During his time in detention he was picked out of an identity parade by the initial eye witness. The
witness who had come forward after the Crime Watch appeal was not present at the ID parade. A
thorough search of Hughes’ house resulted in a pair of shoes and articles of clothing being taken
away for further examination.
On the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service the police charged Hughes with murder. He was
remanded in custody. This renewed public and media interest in his case with intense discussion in
the media and Internet networking sites.
In the judges’ summing up at the Crown Court trial, criticism was made of the Facebook operation.
Directions were made to the jury as to the significance of the following prosecution evidence:
· Eye witness testimony
· DNA on the red scarf and
· The footprint evidence
The jury, made up of 9 women and 3 men, found the defendant guilty by majority verdict. Hughes was
sentenced to life imprisonment.
An Innocence Project has been presented with this case. There are claims that the suspect has been
wrongly convicted.
A young female aged approximately 20 to 25 years of age was found dead in a local park; she had
been the victim of a frenzied attack. Her body was discovered around 10pm by a member of the
public walking his dog, who used his mobile phone to take photos of the victim. He then rang his
friend, a journalist on a local paper to tell him what he had discovered; he then rang the police. Within
30 minutes of the report, CID officers, scenes of crime officers (CSI) and journalists were at the
scene. The police, keen to involve the press in catching the killer, allowed a journalist from a local
paper access to the area to take photos of the crime scene. Intense pressure was put on the police
from the outset to catch the killer. The local and national press demanded daily press conferences for
updates with access to family members.
Initial investigation of the scene resulted in officers finding several footprints and in addition a witness
also came forward whilst the police were in the park. He told officers there that he had seen a man
acting suspiciously, earlier in the evening near the park. Notes of the interview were written up in a
police notebook. Two days after the murder, a member of the public came forward with a red scarf
that he claimed to have found in the park on the night in question. Following a Crime Watch appeal
two weeks after the murder, a second eye witness came forward. This person claimed to have seen a
man acting suspiciously on the night in question.
At the outset the police, convinced that the killer would be known to them, checked police databases
for known offenders living in the area. They also enlisted the help of a criminal psychologist to create
an offender profile of the killer. This led them to arrest a local man, Gareth Hughes, who matched the
offender profile and has previous convictions against women. He is also known to frequent the park.
Hughes was kept in custody for three days, where he asserted that he was abroad at the time of the
murder; he refused to give any other comments during the interview. With no forensic evidence linking
him to the crime, he was released on bail.
Gareth Hughes attracted major media interest. This led to him becoming paranoid and acting
strangely. This behaviour served to further convince the police that he was the killer. To build a case
against Hughes, they deployed a team of officers to befriend him using Facebook. This was in an
attempt to make him confess.
Several months later Hughes was re-arrested and re-interviewed. He again refused to comment.
During his time in detention he was picked out of an identity parade by the initial eye witness. The
witness who had come forward after the Crime Watch appeal was not present at the ID parade. A
thorough search of Hughes’ house resulted in a pair of shoes and articles of clothing being taken
away for further examination.
On the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service the police charged Hughes with murder. He was
remanded in custody. This renewed public and media interest in his case with intense discussion in
the media and Internet networking sites.
In the judges’ summing up at the Crown Court trial, criticism was made of the Facebook operation.
Directions were made to the jury as to the significance of the following prosecution evidence:
· Eye witness testimony
· DNA on the red scarf and
· The footprint evidence
The jury, made up of 9 women and 3 men, found the defendant guilty by majority verdict. Hughes was
sentenced to life imprisonment.
An Innocence Project has been presented with this case. There are claims that the suspect has been
wrongly convicted.
