A.C. 3.2 – Draw conclusions from information (15 marks)
In order to conclude the information, we must first look at sources and what they mean. In order to do so we must
examine and analyse ‘just verdict’ ‘miscarriages of justice’ ‘safe verdicts’ and ‘just sentencing’. We also need to look
at the overall information researched and looked at in criminal cases and conclude with evidence
As there are more than 95% of all cases which get tried within the Magistrates court. It is only certain specific cases
that go to the Crown Court. Within the crown court, it is more likely than ever for the jury to decide a ‘not guilty’
verdict solemnly based on either race, gender, or the way the jury sympathise with the defendant, as seen in the
case of ‘The People v O.J. Simpson’ in which the main reason that there was a ‘not guilty’ verdict was based on race.
Because the jury was made up of 8-2 black to white members. The reason why the jury is more likely to choose a
‘not guilty’ verdict is because of the special principle of ‘jury equity’ meaning they do not follow the law, there are
more likely to decide verdicts based on their own morals.
Just verdict
a verdict is when the jury deliberation allows for a formal decision to be made/decided based on the overall
evidence within a criminal case in the court of law. A verdict is also based on the report while the jury listening in on
what is being said by the defence and prosecution to try and sway the jury to their side. And due to this when the
jury retires (goes into a room to deliberate the facts) the jury does not follow the law as much as a judge would, due
to jury equity. A just verdict is one that is swift, deserved, lawful and proper. It is a verdict that does justice to the
facts of the case, finding the guilty, as well as the innocent not guilty.
In the case of… (add brief)
However sometimes verdicts are unjust, this can be based on little to no evidence the CPS would show in the court.
And still the jury would verdict a decision of guilty, even If there is no clear evidence. Or sometimes it is the other
way round, the CPS would have a lot of information pointing to the defendant, however the jury would decide a not
guilty verdict because of factors such as race, moral, gender, etc.
In the case of Lavinia Woodward, the leniency shown by the courts to a “promising” Oxford graduate reveals the
social and racial inequality at the core of our justice system. the 24-year-old medical student Lavinia, in December
2016, stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife whilst drunk, and was charged with an offence which carries a
maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. However, she was only sentenced to 10 months imprisonment,
suspended for 18 months. This case has attracted significant media attention based around the suggestion
that Ms Woodward received a suspended sentence rather than an immediate custodial sentence because she was:
a) a medical student at Oxford b) white and pretty c) ‘toff’ a rich or upper-class person. This suggests that overall, the
verdict and sentence was unjust. because of her race, class and where she came from.
Furthermore, the government's law reform of the double jeopardy rule in 2001, which was changed in the Criminal
Justice Act 2003. Came as a change due to the most famous cases of Stephen Lawrence as well as the case of Ann
Ming Campaign, which fought to overturn this old law. Double Jeopardy means that a defendant can not be tried
twice for the same crime, even if new evidence comes into light later on, because the defendant was already found
not guilty. Sometimes prosecutors do the best they can with the resources available to them to collect all the
pertinent evidence, and they still do not have all the information before they have to go to trial, particularly in
venues that require that they go to trial without "unreasonable delay." Thus, sometimes a person who commits a
crime is tried and found "not guilty" because of evidence that has not yet turned up but that comes to light later.
When that happens, it is too late to go back to court with the new evidence because the accused cannot twice be
put into jeopardy for the same offense (for which he or she has been tried and found "not guilty").
Famous double jeopardy cases include Amanda Knox case- she was tried and convicted for the murder of British
student Meredith Kercher, who died from knife wounds in the apartment she shared with Knox in 2007. Knox and
her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both found guilty of killing Kercher, receiving 26- and 25-year prison
sentences, respectively. In October 2011, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and set free. In March 2013, Knox was
ordered to stand trial again for Kercher's murder; Italy's final court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, overturned
both Knox's and Sollecito's acquittals. Knox and Sollecito were again found guilty of murder in February 2014, with
Sollecito receiving a 25-year prison sentence and Knox receiving a 28.5-year sentence.
In order to conclude the information, we must first look at sources and what they mean. In order to do so we must
examine and analyse ‘just verdict’ ‘miscarriages of justice’ ‘safe verdicts’ and ‘just sentencing’. We also need to look
at the overall information researched and looked at in criminal cases and conclude with evidence
As there are more than 95% of all cases which get tried within the Magistrates court. It is only certain specific cases
that go to the Crown Court. Within the crown court, it is more likely than ever for the jury to decide a ‘not guilty’
verdict solemnly based on either race, gender, or the way the jury sympathise with the defendant, as seen in the
case of ‘The People v O.J. Simpson’ in which the main reason that there was a ‘not guilty’ verdict was based on race.
Because the jury was made up of 8-2 black to white members. The reason why the jury is more likely to choose a
‘not guilty’ verdict is because of the special principle of ‘jury equity’ meaning they do not follow the law, there are
more likely to decide verdicts based on their own morals.
Just verdict
a verdict is when the jury deliberation allows for a formal decision to be made/decided based on the overall
evidence within a criminal case in the court of law. A verdict is also based on the report while the jury listening in on
what is being said by the defence and prosecution to try and sway the jury to their side. And due to this when the
jury retires (goes into a room to deliberate the facts) the jury does not follow the law as much as a judge would, due
to jury equity. A just verdict is one that is swift, deserved, lawful and proper. It is a verdict that does justice to the
facts of the case, finding the guilty, as well as the innocent not guilty.
In the case of… (add brief)
However sometimes verdicts are unjust, this can be based on little to no evidence the CPS would show in the court.
And still the jury would verdict a decision of guilty, even If there is no clear evidence. Or sometimes it is the other
way round, the CPS would have a lot of information pointing to the defendant, however the jury would decide a not
guilty verdict because of factors such as race, moral, gender, etc.
In the case of Lavinia Woodward, the leniency shown by the courts to a “promising” Oxford graduate reveals the
social and racial inequality at the core of our justice system. the 24-year-old medical student Lavinia, in December
2016, stabbed her boyfriend with a bread knife whilst drunk, and was charged with an offence which carries a
maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. However, she was only sentenced to 10 months imprisonment,
suspended for 18 months. This case has attracted significant media attention based around the suggestion
that Ms Woodward received a suspended sentence rather than an immediate custodial sentence because she was:
a) a medical student at Oxford b) white and pretty c) ‘toff’ a rich or upper-class person. This suggests that overall, the
verdict and sentence was unjust. because of her race, class and where she came from.
Furthermore, the government's law reform of the double jeopardy rule in 2001, which was changed in the Criminal
Justice Act 2003. Came as a change due to the most famous cases of Stephen Lawrence as well as the case of Ann
Ming Campaign, which fought to overturn this old law. Double Jeopardy means that a defendant can not be tried
twice for the same crime, even if new evidence comes into light later on, because the defendant was already found
not guilty. Sometimes prosecutors do the best they can with the resources available to them to collect all the
pertinent evidence, and they still do not have all the information before they have to go to trial, particularly in
venues that require that they go to trial without "unreasonable delay." Thus, sometimes a person who commits a
crime is tried and found "not guilty" because of evidence that has not yet turned up but that comes to light later.
When that happens, it is too late to go back to court with the new evidence because the accused cannot twice be
put into jeopardy for the same offense (for which he or she has been tried and found "not guilty").
Famous double jeopardy cases include Amanda Knox case- she was tried and convicted for the murder of British
student Meredith Kercher, who died from knife wounds in the apartment she shared with Knox in 2007. Knox and
her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both found guilty of killing Kercher, receiving 26- and 25-year prison
sentences, respectively. In October 2011, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted and set free. In March 2013, Knox was
ordered to stand trial again for Kercher's murder; Italy's final court of appeal, the Court of Cassation, overturned
both Knox's and Sollecito's acquittals. Knox and Sollecito were again found guilty of murder in February 2014, with
Sollecito receiving a 25-year prison sentence and Knox receiving a 28.5-year sentence.
