AC2.4
Evidence can be physical or testimonial, it is has a big impact on the outcome of a case, as it can
prove a suspect guilty or not guilty. Each jury takes an oath stating they will make a fair judgement
based on the evidence shown in court. In English and Welsh law the prosecution must provide
evidence that supports the case they are making against the suspect, this is referred to as the ‘Burden
of proof’. The defence will then try to disprove the evidence, it is up to each member of the jury to
attach meaning to the evidence. When evidence is collected correctly, without contamination etc. it
will have a positive impact on the case, as it adds reliable information, It can lead to justice being
served if the offender is convicted of the crime. However it can also be negative if the evidence
collected has been tampered with or contaminated or hasn’t followed the rules of evidence, which
leads to a miscarriage of justice. The case of Lucy Letby shows how evidence can impact a jury, a
letter written by Letby found in her apartment stating ‘I am evil, I did this’ was found and presented in
court, which played a major role in convicting her of a series of attacks on vulnerable babies ,whilst
working as a nurse at a hospital.
Media includes newspapers, TV and social media, it is a form of spreading information, which is
usually from a subjective point of view. If a case is reported by the media that is false the public could
read it and believe it is ‘fact’. This can cause the police to pursue a subject despite the lack of
evidence they are guilty. Unreliable media reports can lead to a suspect not receiving a fair trial and
possibly being wrongly convicted, as juries may have a preconceived opinion of the case based on
what they have read/seen in the media, which influences the decision they make in court, despite solid
evidence that goes against their view being presented. This is called a ‘trial by media’ as the jury is
biased when deciding their verdict. The media usually does not have a strong influence in a trial,
however when it does it is a negative thing, as juries may overlook the evidence presented in trial and
instead make a decision based on what they have seen in the media. A case that shows the impact of
false media reports is Christopher Jefferies, who was interviewed in connection with the murder of
Joanna Yates. The media reported Jeffries was ‘odd’ and ‘angry’. However in reality Jeffries was
innocent, the newspapers had to issue a public apology to him.
Witnesses are people who have seen a crime take place or they could be a victim of the crime,
witnesses can be called on to give evidence in a trial, which could be information relating to the crime
or what they witnesses. They can be called by both the prosecution and the defence to support their
case. The prosecutions witnesses can be cross-examined by the defence, this is referred to as the
‘examination in chief’. If a witness is reliable then it can result in a positive outcome during the trial,
as they can provide information on the events that nobody else can. Witnesses statements are known
to have a big impact on the juries verdict on a case. However, witnesses can be stereotyped which can
cause unfair prejudice from the jury, resulting in their evidence being disregarded or seen as false by
members of the jury, this can cause a miscarriage of justice. Eye-witnesses can be unreliable which
can also cause a miscarriage of justice if they lie or forget aspects of what they saw. A case where
eye-witness testimony affected a trial is Damilola Taylor who was killed by a group of boys. A young
girl who was used as a witness in the case lied, which caused a huge disruption in the trial and led to a
miscarriage of justice, as those responsible were not convicted until much later.
Experts are witnesses with knowledge in specialist areas, they are used in court when the evidence is
highly technical. Due to their credentials, they can have a big influence on a jury, which is called
‘blinded by science’. Experts present their findings to the jury in court, and they must be impartial
even if they have been instructed by either the prosecution or defence. Experts can have a positive
impact on a trial, as they are very influential and have scientific evidence. However, due to their
influence if their evidence is false or incorrect it could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The case of
Sally Clark shows how expert witnesses can be wrong. Clark was convicted after Sir Roy Meadows
gave incorrect evidence about the statistics of sudden infant death syndrome, as he was an ‘expert’ the
jury believed him, despite him being wrong.
Evidence can be physical or testimonial, it is has a big impact on the outcome of a case, as it can
prove a suspect guilty or not guilty. Each jury takes an oath stating they will make a fair judgement
based on the evidence shown in court. In English and Welsh law the prosecution must provide
evidence that supports the case they are making against the suspect, this is referred to as the ‘Burden
of proof’. The defence will then try to disprove the evidence, it is up to each member of the jury to
attach meaning to the evidence. When evidence is collected correctly, without contamination etc. it
will have a positive impact on the case, as it adds reliable information, It can lead to justice being
served if the offender is convicted of the crime. However it can also be negative if the evidence
collected has been tampered with or contaminated or hasn’t followed the rules of evidence, which
leads to a miscarriage of justice. The case of Lucy Letby shows how evidence can impact a jury, a
letter written by Letby found in her apartment stating ‘I am evil, I did this’ was found and presented in
court, which played a major role in convicting her of a series of attacks on vulnerable babies ,whilst
working as a nurse at a hospital.
Media includes newspapers, TV and social media, it is a form of spreading information, which is
usually from a subjective point of view. If a case is reported by the media that is false the public could
read it and believe it is ‘fact’. This can cause the police to pursue a subject despite the lack of
evidence they are guilty. Unreliable media reports can lead to a suspect not receiving a fair trial and
possibly being wrongly convicted, as juries may have a preconceived opinion of the case based on
what they have read/seen in the media, which influences the decision they make in court, despite solid
evidence that goes against their view being presented. This is called a ‘trial by media’ as the jury is
biased when deciding their verdict. The media usually does not have a strong influence in a trial,
however when it does it is a negative thing, as juries may overlook the evidence presented in trial and
instead make a decision based on what they have seen in the media. A case that shows the impact of
false media reports is Christopher Jefferies, who was interviewed in connection with the murder of
Joanna Yates. The media reported Jeffries was ‘odd’ and ‘angry’. However in reality Jeffries was
innocent, the newspapers had to issue a public apology to him.
Witnesses are people who have seen a crime take place or they could be a victim of the crime,
witnesses can be called on to give evidence in a trial, which could be information relating to the crime
or what they witnesses. They can be called by both the prosecution and the defence to support their
case. The prosecutions witnesses can be cross-examined by the defence, this is referred to as the
‘examination in chief’. If a witness is reliable then it can result in a positive outcome during the trial,
as they can provide information on the events that nobody else can. Witnesses statements are known
to have a big impact on the juries verdict on a case. However, witnesses can be stereotyped which can
cause unfair prejudice from the jury, resulting in their evidence being disregarded or seen as false by
members of the jury, this can cause a miscarriage of justice. Eye-witnesses can be unreliable which
can also cause a miscarriage of justice if they lie or forget aspects of what they saw. A case where
eye-witness testimony affected a trial is Damilola Taylor who was killed by a group of boys. A young
girl who was used as a witness in the case lied, which caused a huge disruption in the trial and led to a
miscarriage of justice, as those responsible were not convicted until much later.
Experts are witnesses with knowledge in specialist areas, they are used in court when the evidence is
highly technical. Due to their credentials, they can have a big influence on a jury, which is called
‘blinded by science’. Experts present their findings to the jury in court, and they must be impartial
even if they have been instructed by either the prosecution or defence. Experts can have a positive
impact on a trial, as they are very influential and have scientific evidence. However, due to their
influence if their evidence is false or incorrect it could lead to a miscarriage of justice. The case of
Sally Clark shows how expert witnesses can be wrong. Clark was convicted after Sir Roy Meadows
gave incorrect evidence about the statistics of sudden infant death syndrome, as he was an ‘expert’ the
jury believed him, despite him being wrong.
