Criminology Unit 3: AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information (15 marks)
Although most criminal cases are decided appropriately, and in accordance with the legal
rules and evidence available at the time, sometimes there can be issues with this process.
Safe verdict
A ‘Safe verdict’ is one where it is in line with all the evidence presented, and where all the
correct legal proceedings have taken place. This evidence has to pass the criteria for the
Evidential Test of the Full Code Test of the CPS. So, it has to be admissible, reliable and
credible. A verdict that is reached on the basis of all of the relevant facts of the matter after a
fair trial. One based on valid and admissible evidence and proper trial processes.
An ‘Unsafe verdict’ occurs when mistakes are made in terms of evidence or court
procedures. Such mistakes in the presentation of evidence or court procedures can lead to
miscarriages of justice, (normally someone being found guilty and sentenced when they did
not do it). A wrongful conviction is another type of unsafe verdict, but this is where the trial
process was incorrectly followed (the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not conclusive),
with the Jeremy Bamber case, from the physical, strict evidence presented, it’s not
conclusive that he did it. Or the judge may have allowed evidence they shouldn’t have, such
as in the Sally Clarke case where Sir Roy Meadows statistics shouldn’t have been used, or
the jury may have been subject to tampering or intimidation.
Miscarriages
A miscarriage of Justice is a failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice
where an individual has been wrongly convicted and sentenced for a crime they didn’t
commit, and this innocence is proven usually based on fresh evidence that wasn’t available
at the time of the original trial. Miscarriages of Justice can result from non-disclosure of
evidence by: the police; the prosecution; the fabrication of evidence; poor identification; the
overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony; unreliable confessions; police
pressure or psychological instability; or misdirection by a judge during trial. To combat this,
they introduced the Innocent Project, which helped free more than 2,500 wrongfully
convicted people who have been exonerated in the past three decades. Many of these
(70%) were due to eye-witness misidentification like the case of Ronald Cotton. Where in
July 1984 a man broke into Jennifer Thompson-Cannio’s apartment and sexually assaulted
her. Cotton was arrested and charged based on the basis of Jennifer choosing him out of a
photo line-up. On June 30, 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released
from prison, after he had served 10.5 years in prison.
From analysing and examining cases I can draw the conclusion that miscarriages of justice
do happen. One reason for this is Police misconduct, in the case of the Central Park Five,
whereby the suspects (who were mostly under the age of 16) were interrogated for hours
without parental consent. The boys were coerced by the police into making false statements
about their roles in the attack, leading to them being charged with assault and rape. This
was because the police were under pressure from the public to convict them for the assault
on Trisha Meili. Police misconduct was also present in the Guildford four, whereby they
suspects suffered intense coercion by the police such as intimidation, torture and threats to
their families. This was because the police were under pressure to convict and due to the
brutal nature of their interrogation methods, the four confessed to murder, and spent 14
years in prison before their convictions for two IRA bomb explosions in Guildford were
quashed by the court of appeal in 1989. Similarly, in the case of the Birmingham six, the
police carried out a specific stop and search by a specialist branch of the police. Due to this,
the six were assaulted by the police and deprived of food and sleep whilst in custody. They
Although most criminal cases are decided appropriately, and in accordance with the legal
rules and evidence available at the time, sometimes there can be issues with this process.
Safe verdict
A ‘Safe verdict’ is one where it is in line with all the evidence presented, and where all the
correct legal proceedings have taken place. This evidence has to pass the criteria for the
Evidential Test of the Full Code Test of the CPS. So, it has to be admissible, reliable and
credible. A verdict that is reached on the basis of all of the relevant facts of the matter after a
fair trial. One based on valid and admissible evidence and proper trial processes.
An ‘Unsafe verdict’ occurs when mistakes are made in terms of evidence or court
procedures. Such mistakes in the presentation of evidence or court procedures can lead to
miscarriages of justice, (normally someone being found guilty and sentenced when they did
not do it). A wrongful conviction is another type of unsafe verdict, but this is where the trial
process was incorrectly followed (the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not conclusive),
with the Jeremy Bamber case, from the physical, strict evidence presented, it’s not
conclusive that he did it. Or the judge may have allowed evidence they shouldn’t have, such
as in the Sally Clarke case where Sir Roy Meadows statistics shouldn’t have been used, or
the jury may have been subject to tampering or intimidation.
Miscarriages
A miscarriage of Justice is a failure of a court or judicial system to attain the ends of justice
where an individual has been wrongly convicted and sentenced for a crime they didn’t
commit, and this innocence is proven usually based on fresh evidence that wasn’t available
at the time of the original trial. Miscarriages of Justice can result from non-disclosure of
evidence by: the police; the prosecution; the fabrication of evidence; poor identification; the
overestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony; unreliable confessions; police
pressure or psychological instability; or misdirection by a judge during trial. To combat this,
they introduced the Innocent Project, which helped free more than 2,500 wrongfully
convicted people who have been exonerated in the past three decades. Many of these
(70%) were due to eye-witness misidentification like the case of Ronald Cotton. Where in
July 1984 a man broke into Jennifer Thompson-Cannio’s apartment and sexually assaulted
her. Cotton was arrested and charged based on the basis of Jennifer choosing him out of a
photo line-up. On June 30, 1995, Cotton was officially cleared of all charges and released
from prison, after he had served 10.5 years in prison.
From analysing and examining cases I can draw the conclusion that miscarriages of justice
do happen. One reason for this is Police misconduct, in the case of the Central Park Five,
whereby the suspects (who were mostly under the age of 16) were interrogated for hours
without parental consent. The boys were coerced by the police into making false statements
about their roles in the attack, leading to them being charged with assault and rape. This
was because the police were under pressure from the public to convict them for the assault
on Trisha Meili. Police misconduct was also present in the Guildford four, whereby they
suspects suffered intense coercion by the police such as intimidation, torture and threats to
their families. This was because the police were under pressure to convict and due to the
brutal nature of their interrogation methods, the four confessed to murder, and spent 14
years in prison before their convictions for two IRA bomb explosions in Guildford were
quashed by the court of appeal in 1989. Similarly, in the case of the Birmingham six, the
police carried out a specific stop and search by a specialist branch of the police. Due to this,
the six were assaulted by the police and deprived of food and sleep whilst in custody. They
