AC3.2- Draw conclusions from information.
A just verdict is a lawful, legal, and deserved verdict that reflects the facts from the
case. Unjust verdicts are ones that do not meet this criteria, such as the verdict in the
Steven Lawrence case. 18-year-old Lawrence was killed in 1993, and his murderers
were not charged until 2012, despite the police having ample evidence and naming 5
suspects which they arrested but did not charge (though there was video of them all on
a police camera nearby with long weapons). It was suspected that the case was
handled poorly due to the fact he was a black boy, and though this was initially denied
by the police, the Macpherson report found that the force was institutionally racist,
implying that the case was doomed to be difficult or impossible to charge. In 2011, it
was announced that 2 of the 5 original suspects, David Norris and Gary Dobson would
stand trial in light of new evidence, and in early January 2012 both were found guilty of
murdering Steven Lawrence. This case is an example of unjust verdicts because the
police and the CPS initially deemed the suspects as not guilty and didn't even charge
them. Then, despite lots of evidence pointing to the murder being the actions of a group
of 5 people caught both on video and by eyewitnesses near the scene, only two of the
five involved were charged at all, making this, overall, an unjust verdict.
An example, however, of a just verdict would be the case of R v Ponting, where Clive
Ponting had leaked government documents relating to the unnecessary and unlawful
sinking of an Argentinian battleship to an MP, arguing that it was “in the interest of the
state”. The judge, during the trial, advised that the Jury find Ponting guilty as he had
broken the Official Secrets Act (1989). However, though the jury understood he had
broken the law, they gave him a verdict of not guilty as a jury nullification, agreeing that
the release of these documents was in the best interest of the public and the state. This
verdict was just because it aligned with the public view of the case and was justified.
A safe verdict is based on reliable and accurate evidence, and while it shouldn’t be a
miscarriage of justice, it may not be just. Just because a verdict is safe does not mean it
is just. An example of a verdict that was not safe was when Meredith Kercher was
murdered and due to the mishandling of evidence Amanda Knox got charged for the
crime alongside her boyfriend and Rudy Guede, who owned the apartment Kercher
was found in. When it came out that the DNA evidence found that was used to convict
did not actually prove her guilty, she was released alongside her boyfriend and Guede.
This created a huge problem as Guede actually had murdered Kercher but there was a
lot of work involved in getting him reconvicted. He was finally reconvicted in 2014. This
is a good example of an unsafe verdict because even though Knox and her boyfriend
were charged, the evidence should not have been admissible and did not actually prove
that they had done the murder, making the verdict unsafe.
A just verdict is a lawful, legal, and deserved verdict that reflects the facts from the
case. Unjust verdicts are ones that do not meet this criteria, such as the verdict in the
Steven Lawrence case. 18-year-old Lawrence was killed in 1993, and his murderers
were not charged until 2012, despite the police having ample evidence and naming 5
suspects which they arrested but did not charge (though there was video of them all on
a police camera nearby with long weapons). It was suspected that the case was
handled poorly due to the fact he was a black boy, and though this was initially denied
by the police, the Macpherson report found that the force was institutionally racist,
implying that the case was doomed to be difficult or impossible to charge. In 2011, it
was announced that 2 of the 5 original suspects, David Norris and Gary Dobson would
stand trial in light of new evidence, and in early January 2012 both were found guilty of
murdering Steven Lawrence. This case is an example of unjust verdicts because the
police and the CPS initially deemed the suspects as not guilty and didn't even charge
them. Then, despite lots of evidence pointing to the murder being the actions of a group
of 5 people caught both on video and by eyewitnesses near the scene, only two of the
five involved were charged at all, making this, overall, an unjust verdict.
An example, however, of a just verdict would be the case of R v Ponting, where Clive
Ponting had leaked government documents relating to the unnecessary and unlawful
sinking of an Argentinian battleship to an MP, arguing that it was “in the interest of the
state”. The judge, during the trial, advised that the Jury find Ponting guilty as he had
broken the Official Secrets Act (1989). However, though the jury understood he had
broken the law, they gave him a verdict of not guilty as a jury nullification, agreeing that
the release of these documents was in the best interest of the public and the state. This
verdict was just because it aligned with the public view of the case and was justified.
A safe verdict is based on reliable and accurate evidence, and while it shouldn’t be a
miscarriage of justice, it may not be just. Just because a verdict is safe does not mean it
is just. An example of a verdict that was not safe was when Meredith Kercher was
murdered and due to the mishandling of evidence Amanda Knox got charged for the
crime alongside her boyfriend and Rudy Guede, who owned the apartment Kercher
was found in. When it came out that the DNA evidence found that was used to convict
did not actually prove her guilty, she was released alongside her boyfriend and Guede.
This created a huge problem as Guede actually had murdered Kercher but there was a
lot of work involved in getting him reconvicted. He was finally reconvicted in 2014. This
is a good example of an unsafe verdict because even though Knox and her boyfriend
were charged, the evidence should not have been admissible and did not actually prove
that they had done the murder, making the verdict unsafe.
