AC3.1- Examine information for validity. (Use the brief.)
Evidence
To have true validity, evidence must be admissible in court, plus reliable and credible
in source. To be admissible, it must have passed the Full Code Test, conducted by
the CPS before prosecuting a case. The case(s) of Sally Clark (and Angela
Canning) demonstrates the factors of evidence well; she had been convicted of
murdering her two infant boys after their sudden deaths, in no small part due to Roy
Meadows, who was an expert witness in the case. Some of the facts used in his
testimony were completely incorrect, and was relied upon by the prosecution. The
testimony that Meadows provided for the prosecution was heavily biased, as he had
seemingly decided himself that Clark was guilty, presenting his evidence as such.
Saying the likelihood of 2 young babies dying in the same family was about 1 in 77
million, which has no factual basis. So, alongside being biased, this evidence was
lacking accuracy too. Later research showed that the real figure for these chances
could be as low as 1 in 1000. Any evidence given in court should be without
opinion, purely factual so that juries are not influenced by other people’s emotions
and instead by the facts in front of them. Meadow did not adhere to this, and his
evidence was presented in a way that made his opinion on the matter very clear,
which likely influenced the jury. It was revealed that other paediatricians disagreed
with Meadow’s opinion that the deaths of her sons must have been murder,
convinced that the children died of natural causes. Furthermore, Meadow’s
presentation of this evidence in this manner shows he did not consider the true
circumstances in which the deaths of these babies occurred and in which the
crimes were supposed to have happened- he clearly wasn’t aware of one of various
studies that showed second infant deaths in a family were much more likely to
happen because of natural causes than abuse. This also shows his knowledge
lacked currency. However, due to his high-profile credentials and reputation as a
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) expert, his testimony as an expert was seen
to be very current and have a high level of validity. Another case that emphasises
how evidence as a whole may be misrepresented is Liam Allen, who was arrested
for raping his ex girlfriend which, in reality, had not actually happened. Though is
never should have made it, the case went to court and the police had not said they
had the text messages that Liam had informed them existed- these would prove his
innocence. They did not disclose that they had in fact investigated this, and that that
had led to uncovering many texts on his accuser’s phone that proven she was lying
about the assault. The police then left this evidence undisclosed for a long time, until
Liam’s defence team reached out more times to ask about any more evidence as
Evidence
To have true validity, evidence must be admissible in court, plus reliable and credible
in source. To be admissible, it must have passed the Full Code Test, conducted by
the CPS before prosecuting a case. The case(s) of Sally Clark (and Angela
Canning) demonstrates the factors of evidence well; she had been convicted of
murdering her two infant boys after their sudden deaths, in no small part due to Roy
Meadows, who was an expert witness in the case. Some of the facts used in his
testimony were completely incorrect, and was relied upon by the prosecution. The
testimony that Meadows provided for the prosecution was heavily biased, as he had
seemingly decided himself that Clark was guilty, presenting his evidence as such.
Saying the likelihood of 2 young babies dying in the same family was about 1 in 77
million, which has no factual basis. So, alongside being biased, this evidence was
lacking accuracy too. Later research showed that the real figure for these chances
could be as low as 1 in 1000. Any evidence given in court should be without
opinion, purely factual so that juries are not influenced by other people’s emotions
and instead by the facts in front of them. Meadow did not adhere to this, and his
evidence was presented in a way that made his opinion on the matter very clear,
which likely influenced the jury. It was revealed that other paediatricians disagreed
with Meadow’s opinion that the deaths of her sons must have been murder,
convinced that the children died of natural causes. Furthermore, Meadow’s
presentation of this evidence in this manner shows he did not consider the true
circumstances in which the deaths of these babies occurred and in which the
crimes were supposed to have happened- he clearly wasn’t aware of one of various
studies that showed second infant deaths in a family were much more likely to
happen because of natural causes than abuse. This also shows his knowledge
lacked currency. However, due to his high-profile credentials and reputation as a
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) expert, his testimony as an expert was seen
to be very current and have a high level of validity. Another case that emphasises
how evidence as a whole may be misrepresented is Liam Allen, who was arrested
for raping his ex girlfriend which, in reality, had not actually happened. Though is
never should have made it, the case went to court and the police had not said they
had the text messages that Liam had informed them existed- these would prove his
innocence. They did not disclose that they had in fact investigated this, and that that
had led to uncovering many texts on his accuser’s phone that proven she was lying
about the assault. The police then left this evidence undisclosed for a long time, until
Liam’s defence team reached out more times to ask about any more evidence as
