Topic 3.2 - Draw conclusions from information (15 marks, 70 mins)
Just Verdicts
One that is deserved, lawful and proper. It is one that does justice to the facts of the case, finding the guilty, guilty, and the innocent not guilty. The
criminal justice system doesn’t always produce just verdicts.
Case Example - Russel Bishop - Bishop killed two girls in his local area. He was acquitted the first time due to a lack of evidence. Attempted to kill a
second girl in which he was caught. He was then retried for the original two murders, in which he was found guilty of. This shows a just verdict was
eventually reached.
Case example - OJ Simpson - Simpson is a former NFL football star and was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping. He was acquitted for the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Three separate pieces of physical evidence linking him to the crime were found, however
during the trial most of this evidence was dismissed for many reasons. For example, the glove with DNA was too small to fit him. And some evidence said
to be found by the leading detective of the case was when he was on his own and due to him being openly racist, leading the defence to believe the
evidence was planted by him. Some people believe it was unjust as the jury was made up of eight out of twelve black people so they may be biased to help
another black man. Especially to stand up against the detective who used over 40 racial slurs in just one interview. It could also be unjust as it was
influenced by the media, due to OJ being a high profile celebrity and because of this the media swayed in his favour of being innocent, so it's likely that the
public and jury felt their opinion being persuaded by this too leading to bias.
Double jeopardy
This law was changed in 2003, someone who has been acquitted of an offence cannot be prosecuted again for that offence. This prevents the abuse of
state power. It stops prosecutors from repeatedly prosecuting someone for the same crime until they finally secure a conviction, which could be regarded
as oppression. However, sometimes it shows that a not guilty verdict in the original trial was unjust. This happens when the defendant, after being
acquitted of a crime, then admits to having committed it. The justice of a verdict can also be questioned when new evidence is found after the acquittal.
Case Example - Billy Dunlop - Billy Dunlop was jailed in 2006 for killing Julie Hogg - the first person to be retried for murder after a change in the
"double jeopardy" law. Dunlop, 55, murdered Ms Hogg in 1989. He had been tried twice for her murder in 1991 but each time a jury failed to reach a
verdict and he was formally acquitted under the convention that the prosecution does not ask for a third trial. He later admitted the killing but as he
could not be tried for murder again he could only be prosecuted for perjury. In 2005, the Double Jeopardy rule was overturned.
Case example - Stephen Lawrence - Killed by a group of white youths in a racist attack. Had been waiting for a bus with a friend, when the gang
attacked them. Stephen's friend escaped unhurt, but Stephen died from his injuries. Took 18 years for a conviction, two defendants were convicted of his
murder. Failed to be recognised as a hate crime due to institutional bias and racism of the police service and failures to investigate suspects due to force
corruption. Gave a boost to the campaign to change the double jeopardy rule. The Macpherson Report, issued as a result of the Lawrence case, said the
police had institutional racism and made 70 recommendations to improve the service. Stephen's parents brought a private prosecution against three of
the suspects but they were acquitted after the judge ruled that identification evidence given by Duwayne Brooks who was with Stephen at the time of the
murder was inadmissible.
The Macpherson Report
Was called for the removal of the double jeopardy rule in 1999. In 2003 the criminal justice act amended the law so that a second prosecution could be
allowed for serious crime if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is found. And then the director of public prosecutions must personally agree that it's in the
, public's interest to re-open the case. Only one re-trial is allowed. In the Stephen Lawrence case this change led to the re-trial and conviction of one of
the five suspects, Gary Dobson, in 2012. And David Norris who had been previously tried was also convicted.
Case Example - Gary Dobson and David Norris - Found that the police are institutionally racist. It took a public inquiry in order to achieve a just
verdict. Police arrest brothers Neil and Jamie Acourt, David Norris, Gary Dobson and Luke Knight, and search their homes. Neil Acourt and Luke Knight
are identified by Duwayne Brooks at ID parades as part of the gang responsible and the pair are charged with murder. They deny the charges. The CPS
drops the prosecution as it says the ID evidence from Duwayne Brooks is unreliable. Dobson and Norris are both found guilty of murder at the end of a
six-week trial into the death of Stephen Lawrence. During the trial, the court hears that microscopic evidence found on clothing belonging to the accused
links them to the murder. The jury takes two-and-a-half days to reach its decision. Both men receive life sentences; Dobson is jailed for a minimum of 15
years and two months, Norris for 14 years and three months. This could show that a just verdict has been reached but only after 19 years and only in
this case.
Jury equity or jury nullification
Law can seem unjust sometimes. When this happens, to get a just verdict, a jury may deliberately reject the evidence and decide to acquit a defendant
who broke the law, even if the judge advised them to reach a guilty verdict. This is called jury equity or jury nullification (the jury nullifies the law). Juries
do this when they believe the existing law or the punishment for breaking it is unfair, inhumane or immoral. A jury's verdict to acquit is unassailable. If
juries consistently refuse to convict defendants charged under a specific law, the law may need to be changed.
Capital punishment
In early 19th century england, theft of items worth more than 40 shillings (£2) carried a death sentence, but juries were often unwilling to condemn
petty thieves to death and they either got not guilty verdicts or even, in a case of the theft of £20, found the defendant guilty of stealing only 39 shillings
(£1.95) instead.
Runaway slaves
In the United States in the 1850s, juries in northern states (where juries regularly acquitted defendant accused of harbouring fugitive slaves), where
slavery was outlawed, practised nullification to protest the fugitive slave act which required slaves captured in northern states to be returned to their
owners in the south, where slavery was legal.
Anti-war protest
In 2000 two anti-war protesters, Rosie James and Rachel Wenham, were twice acquitted of criminal damage involving spray painting ‘death machine’ and
‘illegal’ on the side of the nuclear submarine HMS Vengeance. And in both trials, the jury failed to agree on a further charge of damaging the submarine's
equipment. They both admitted to it but pleaded not guilty, arguing that they were acting to prevent a war crime and their actions were justified under
international law. This case is similar to the case of Clive Ponting, who was acquitted by a jury of leaking official secrets over the sinking of the general
Belgrano, despite openly admitting he had done so.
Cannabis laws
In 1998 Alan Blythe was charged with growing cannabis with intent to supply, an offence normally punished by a prison sentence. He pleaded ‘duress of
circumstance’, explaining he had grown cannabis and supplied it to his wife, a terminally ill multiple sclerosis sufferer. Cannabis was the only thing that
eased her pain and he feared that without it she would commit suicide. The judge said that duress wasn't a legitimate defence and instructed the jury to
find Blythe guilty, but the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges other than simple cannabis possession, with a £100 fine instead of a prison
sentence. This case is similar to Kay Gilderdale who assisted her daughters suicide by giving her a morphine overdose as she was severely ill, Kay was
charged with attempted murder and was given a one year conditional discharge after admitting to it.
Just Verdicts
One that is deserved, lawful and proper. It is one that does justice to the facts of the case, finding the guilty, guilty, and the innocent not guilty. The
criminal justice system doesn’t always produce just verdicts.
Case Example - Russel Bishop - Bishop killed two girls in his local area. He was acquitted the first time due to a lack of evidence. Attempted to kill a
second girl in which he was caught. He was then retried for the original two murders, in which he was found guilty of. This shows a just verdict was
eventually reached.
Case example - OJ Simpson - Simpson is a former NFL football star and was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping. He was acquitted for the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Three separate pieces of physical evidence linking him to the crime were found, however
during the trial most of this evidence was dismissed for many reasons. For example, the glove with DNA was too small to fit him. And some evidence said
to be found by the leading detective of the case was when he was on his own and due to him being openly racist, leading the defence to believe the
evidence was planted by him. Some people believe it was unjust as the jury was made up of eight out of twelve black people so they may be biased to help
another black man. Especially to stand up against the detective who used over 40 racial slurs in just one interview. It could also be unjust as it was
influenced by the media, due to OJ being a high profile celebrity and because of this the media swayed in his favour of being innocent, so it's likely that the
public and jury felt their opinion being persuaded by this too leading to bias.
Double jeopardy
This law was changed in 2003, someone who has been acquitted of an offence cannot be prosecuted again for that offence. This prevents the abuse of
state power. It stops prosecutors from repeatedly prosecuting someone for the same crime until they finally secure a conviction, which could be regarded
as oppression. However, sometimes it shows that a not guilty verdict in the original trial was unjust. This happens when the defendant, after being
acquitted of a crime, then admits to having committed it. The justice of a verdict can also be questioned when new evidence is found after the acquittal.
Case Example - Billy Dunlop - Billy Dunlop was jailed in 2006 for killing Julie Hogg - the first person to be retried for murder after a change in the
"double jeopardy" law. Dunlop, 55, murdered Ms Hogg in 1989. He had been tried twice for her murder in 1991 but each time a jury failed to reach a
verdict and he was formally acquitted under the convention that the prosecution does not ask for a third trial. He later admitted the killing but as he
could not be tried for murder again he could only be prosecuted for perjury. In 2005, the Double Jeopardy rule was overturned.
Case example - Stephen Lawrence - Killed by a group of white youths in a racist attack. Had been waiting for a bus with a friend, when the gang
attacked them. Stephen's friend escaped unhurt, but Stephen died from his injuries. Took 18 years for a conviction, two defendants were convicted of his
murder. Failed to be recognised as a hate crime due to institutional bias and racism of the police service and failures to investigate suspects due to force
corruption. Gave a boost to the campaign to change the double jeopardy rule. The Macpherson Report, issued as a result of the Lawrence case, said the
police had institutional racism and made 70 recommendations to improve the service. Stephen's parents brought a private prosecution against three of
the suspects but they were acquitted after the judge ruled that identification evidence given by Duwayne Brooks who was with Stephen at the time of the
murder was inadmissible.
The Macpherson Report
Was called for the removal of the double jeopardy rule in 1999. In 2003 the criminal justice act amended the law so that a second prosecution could be
allowed for serious crime if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is found. And then the director of public prosecutions must personally agree that it's in the
, public's interest to re-open the case. Only one re-trial is allowed. In the Stephen Lawrence case this change led to the re-trial and conviction of one of
the five suspects, Gary Dobson, in 2012. And David Norris who had been previously tried was also convicted.
Case Example - Gary Dobson and David Norris - Found that the police are institutionally racist. It took a public inquiry in order to achieve a just
verdict. Police arrest brothers Neil and Jamie Acourt, David Norris, Gary Dobson and Luke Knight, and search their homes. Neil Acourt and Luke Knight
are identified by Duwayne Brooks at ID parades as part of the gang responsible and the pair are charged with murder. They deny the charges. The CPS
drops the prosecution as it says the ID evidence from Duwayne Brooks is unreliable. Dobson and Norris are both found guilty of murder at the end of a
six-week trial into the death of Stephen Lawrence. During the trial, the court hears that microscopic evidence found on clothing belonging to the accused
links them to the murder. The jury takes two-and-a-half days to reach its decision. Both men receive life sentences; Dobson is jailed for a minimum of 15
years and two months, Norris for 14 years and three months. This could show that a just verdict has been reached but only after 19 years and only in
this case.
Jury equity or jury nullification
Law can seem unjust sometimes. When this happens, to get a just verdict, a jury may deliberately reject the evidence and decide to acquit a defendant
who broke the law, even if the judge advised them to reach a guilty verdict. This is called jury equity or jury nullification (the jury nullifies the law). Juries
do this when they believe the existing law or the punishment for breaking it is unfair, inhumane or immoral. A jury's verdict to acquit is unassailable. If
juries consistently refuse to convict defendants charged under a specific law, the law may need to be changed.
Capital punishment
In early 19th century england, theft of items worth more than 40 shillings (£2) carried a death sentence, but juries were often unwilling to condemn
petty thieves to death and they either got not guilty verdicts or even, in a case of the theft of £20, found the defendant guilty of stealing only 39 shillings
(£1.95) instead.
Runaway slaves
In the United States in the 1850s, juries in northern states (where juries regularly acquitted defendant accused of harbouring fugitive slaves), where
slavery was outlawed, practised nullification to protest the fugitive slave act which required slaves captured in northern states to be returned to their
owners in the south, where slavery was legal.
Anti-war protest
In 2000 two anti-war protesters, Rosie James and Rachel Wenham, were twice acquitted of criminal damage involving spray painting ‘death machine’ and
‘illegal’ on the side of the nuclear submarine HMS Vengeance. And in both trials, the jury failed to agree on a further charge of damaging the submarine's
equipment. They both admitted to it but pleaded not guilty, arguing that they were acting to prevent a war crime and their actions were justified under
international law. This case is similar to the case of Clive Ponting, who was acquitted by a jury of leaking official secrets over the sinking of the general
Belgrano, despite openly admitting he had done so.
Cannabis laws
In 1998 Alan Blythe was charged with growing cannabis with intent to supply, an offence normally punished by a prison sentence. He pleaded ‘duress of
circumstance’, explaining he had grown cannabis and supplied it to his wife, a terminally ill multiple sclerosis sufferer. Cannabis was the only thing that
eased her pain and he feared that without it she would commit suicide. The judge said that duress wasn't a legitimate defence and instructed the jury to
find Blythe guilty, but the jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges other than simple cannabis possession, with a £100 fine instead of a prison
sentence. This case is similar to Kay Gilderdale who assisted her daughters suicide by giving her a morphine overdose as she was severely ill, Kay was
charged with attempted murder and was given a one year conditional discharge after admitting to it.
