Unit 3 3.1 miss johannes
Draw conclusions from information
Starter
1) What factors may lead to a trial being unfair?
● Biased judiciary. judge/jury
● Bad evidence e.g hearsay, full reliance on EWT
● Ill equipped representation
2) Why might there be more not guilty verdicts in cases decided by juries rather than ones
decided by judges or magistrates? With juries there may be more of a factor of emotion
whereas judges and magistrates will most likely only look at the facts presented to them
and not beyond them.
Safe verdicts
A safe verdict is one that is reached on the basis of all the relevant facts of the matter after a fair
trial. To achieve a safe verdict, 2 things are needed:
● The evidence must be admissible,reliable and credible, as well as sufficient to justify the
verdict.
● Court procedures must have been followed correctly during the trial.
Unsafe verdicts and miscarriages of justice
Unsafe verdicts and miscarriages of justice generally occur when there are either problems with
the evidence/ problems with the trial process itself. In such cases, the defendant may seek to
appeal against the ‘guilty’ verdict.
Miscarriages of justice
Miscarriages of justice are cases where the innocence of the appellant (person making the
appeal) is proven. They are almost always based on fresh evidence. E.g, this might be as a
result of new forensic techniques such as advances in DNA
analysis that were not available at the time of the original trial.
If the court of appeal decides that a conviction is a misscarriage
of justice, then there will not normally be a need for a retrial. The
case against the appellant will be dismissed, because the new
evidence proves their innocence. E.g amanda knox, barry
george, birmingham 6.(UK), the murder of Oscar Grant at
fruitvale station (USA) officer only served 11months for shooting
Grant at fruitvale train station.
unsafe / wrongful convictions
Unsafe verdicts are usually called unsafe/wrongful convictions. Miscarriages of justice are one
type of wrongful conviction(they are wrong because the accused was actually innocent).
However wrongful convictions can also occur where it is not clear whether the accused was
innocent or guilty. In these cases, the conviction is usually overturned because there was
, something wrong with the trial process. This led to the accused not receiving a fair trial and so
we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt that they were not guilty.
Defects in the trial procedure such as the following may cause wrongful convictions:
● The judge misdirecting the jury
● The judge making mistakes in their legal rulings, such as wrongly excluding/including
evidence e.g admitting hearsay evidence
● Failure to call relevant witnesses/presenting relevant evidence
● Jury irregularities e.g tampering, jurors researching cases on the internet etc.
These defects may not show that the appellant was innocent, but they cast doubt on their guilt.
In these cases, the court of appeal will quash the original convictions but may order a retrial.
The birmingham 6
Arrest & trial
On 21st november 1974, 2 Birmingham pubs
were bombed, it is believed these attacks were
carried out by members of the IRA, with the
loss of 21 lives. Soon after, 6 northern irish-
born catholic men who lived in birmingham
were arrested. While in police custody,they
were deprived of food and sleep,interrogated
for up to 12 hours without a break,threatened
and beaten, and subjected to a mock
execution. 4 of the men signed confessions.
On 12th may 1975, the 6 were charged with
murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. The judge deemed the confessions admissible as
evidence. Giving evidence for the prosecution, the forensic scientist Dr Frank Scuse claimed he
was 99% certain that 2 of the men had explosives traces on their hands. This was opposed by
the defence expert Dr Hugh Black, the former chief inspector of explosives for the home office.
The 6 were found guilty on 15th august 1975 and each given 21 life sentences.
Appeals
In march 1976 the men's application for leave to appeal was dismissed and they remained in
jail. In 1985, the first of several world in action tv programmes casting doubt on their convictions
was broadcast. In 1986, a book by chris mullin MP set out the case for their innocence,
including mullins claim to have met some of those who were actually responsible for the
bombings.
In 1988 after the longest criminal appeal ever, the court of appeal ruled that the convictions
were safe and dismissed their appeals. Over the next 3 years journalists and campaigners
produced new evidence throwing doubt on the safety of the convictions.
Freedom
Draw conclusions from information
Starter
1) What factors may lead to a trial being unfair?
● Biased judiciary. judge/jury
● Bad evidence e.g hearsay, full reliance on EWT
● Ill equipped representation
2) Why might there be more not guilty verdicts in cases decided by juries rather than ones
decided by judges or magistrates? With juries there may be more of a factor of emotion
whereas judges and magistrates will most likely only look at the facts presented to them
and not beyond them.
Safe verdicts
A safe verdict is one that is reached on the basis of all the relevant facts of the matter after a fair
trial. To achieve a safe verdict, 2 things are needed:
● The evidence must be admissible,reliable and credible, as well as sufficient to justify the
verdict.
● Court procedures must have been followed correctly during the trial.
Unsafe verdicts and miscarriages of justice
Unsafe verdicts and miscarriages of justice generally occur when there are either problems with
the evidence/ problems with the trial process itself. In such cases, the defendant may seek to
appeal against the ‘guilty’ verdict.
Miscarriages of justice
Miscarriages of justice are cases where the innocence of the appellant (person making the
appeal) is proven. They are almost always based on fresh evidence. E.g, this might be as a
result of new forensic techniques such as advances in DNA
analysis that were not available at the time of the original trial.
If the court of appeal decides that a conviction is a misscarriage
of justice, then there will not normally be a need for a retrial. The
case against the appellant will be dismissed, because the new
evidence proves their innocence. E.g amanda knox, barry
george, birmingham 6.(UK), the murder of Oscar Grant at
fruitvale station (USA) officer only served 11months for shooting
Grant at fruitvale train station.
unsafe / wrongful convictions
Unsafe verdicts are usually called unsafe/wrongful convictions. Miscarriages of justice are one
type of wrongful conviction(they are wrong because the accused was actually innocent).
However wrongful convictions can also occur where it is not clear whether the accused was
innocent or guilty. In these cases, the conviction is usually overturned because there was
, something wrong with the trial process. This led to the accused not receiving a fair trial and so
we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt that they were not guilty.
Defects in the trial procedure such as the following may cause wrongful convictions:
● The judge misdirecting the jury
● The judge making mistakes in their legal rulings, such as wrongly excluding/including
evidence e.g admitting hearsay evidence
● Failure to call relevant witnesses/presenting relevant evidence
● Jury irregularities e.g tampering, jurors researching cases on the internet etc.
These defects may not show that the appellant was innocent, but they cast doubt on their guilt.
In these cases, the court of appeal will quash the original convictions but may order a retrial.
The birmingham 6
Arrest & trial
On 21st november 1974, 2 Birmingham pubs
were bombed, it is believed these attacks were
carried out by members of the IRA, with the
loss of 21 lives. Soon after, 6 northern irish-
born catholic men who lived in birmingham
were arrested. While in police custody,they
were deprived of food and sleep,interrogated
for up to 12 hours without a break,threatened
and beaten, and subjected to a mock
execution. 4 of the men signed confessions.
On 12th may 1975, the 6 were charged with
murder and conspiracy to cause explosions. The judge deemed the confessions admissible as
evidence. Giving evidence for the prosecution, the forensic scientist Dr Frank Scuse claimed he
was 99% certain that 2 of the men had explosives traces on their hands. This was opposed by
the defence expert Dr Hugh Black, the former chief inspector of explosives for the home office.
The 6 were found guilty on 15th august 1975 and each given 21 life sentences.
Appeals
In march 1976 the men's application for leave to appeal was dismissed and they remained in
jail. In 1985, the first of several world in action tv programmes casting doubt on their convictions
was broadcast. In 1986, a book by chris mullin MP set out the case for their innocence,
including mullins claim to have met some of those who were actually responsible for the
bombings.
In 1988 after the longest criminal appeal ever, the court of appeal ruled that the convictions
were safe and dismissed their appeals. Over the next 3 years journalists and campaigners
produced new evidence throwing doubt on the safety of the convictions.
Freedom
