AC3.1
Examine information for validity (15)
Key Terms:
Validity – Is the information truthful and correct?
When examining information for validity, we test it in regard to bias, opinion,
circumstances, currency and accuracy.
Bias and opinion – is the information objective and impartial? Does it contain an opinion
that isn’t true/ fair?
Circumstances – can the information be explained differently depending on different
situations?
Currency and accuracy – is the information relevant, up to date (current) and correct?
Tips of what to look out for in the brief and possible themes of evaluating it:
Famous people – if there are famous people in the scenario, there will be bias and opinions
and a lot more media attention. Whereas, if the circumstances were different and they were
not famous, the police will not rush the investigation as there won’t be as much pressure
from the public and the media.
Weather – if the time of day is the morning, then the weather will be clear and it will be
easier to see evidence and see what is happening, meaning a more accurate story. Whereas,
in different circumstances and it was dark and during the night, it may be hard to see what
is happening and the evidence is not as reliable and accurate.
Amount of evidence – if there a lack of evidence, then it will not be as accurate and is more
likely to be affected by opinions and bias as people will only focus on that specific evidence.
Whereas, if there was a lot of evidence it will be stronger and less likely affected by bias as
people wouldn’t have an opinion on every piece of evidence.
Media – the media will create bias views within the public and will also put pressure on the
police to solve the case, which will make them rush investigations. Whereas in different
circumstances and there was not any media, there would be less pressure to solve the case
as quickly as less people would be aware of it and be having opinions on it, meaning the
investigation will be carried out more thoroughly, so more accurate results etc.
Desperate? - if the police are desperate to solve the case, then they will make rushed
decisions which could result in less accurate evidence etc. Whereas in different
circumstances, if they were not desperate they would take their time on the investigation
and go about solving it differently, possibly producing more accurate information.
, One suspect? - if the police only have one suspect, there will be more bias as people will
only have one person which they can develop opinions on and be biased against. This will
put pressure on the police to focus investigations on that one person, which means
evidence is only being tested to see if it matches that person, meaning less accurate results
and less valid evidence/ findings.
How long after case? - if the evidence is found a long time after the case happened, then it
will not be up to date and is not current and it will be less reliable and accurate. This will
negatively reduce the validity of the evidence as it may have been contaminated in that
time or have only recently got there. Whereas if the circumstances are different, and the
evidence is freshly discovered then it is more up to date and more likely to be relevant to
the case, meaning it is more accurate and more valid.
Majority verdict – if there is a majority verdict by the jury, it will be more valid because it is
more certain and there are more opinions all being in agreement. Whereas, if there was not
a majority verdict, there will be a lot of different opinions outweighing each other and the
verdict is not as accurate or reliable, so it is less valid.
VALIDITY OF EVIDENCE:
The two types of evidence are physical evidence (anything we take from the scene) and
testimonial evidence (oral statements provided by people connected to the case).
The evidence in court should be the only factor affecting the jury/ magistrate’s decision.
However, this is not always the case as people have may prior knowledge and pre-existing
opinions. However, this is being countered by the CPS ensuring evidence is admissible,
reliable and credible. This will ensure the evidence is acceptable and accurate.
In regards to the bias and opinion of evidence, the validity may be doubted. One example of
how this may limit the validity is through juror infatuation. This may influence evidence
because if a jury member is affectionate towards someone giving evidence, they will be bias
and develop an impartial opinion and will be more likely to agree with the barrister and
their evidence. This is an issue in regards to evidence as the jury may dismiss any other
evidence (regardless of how relevant it is) purely because it has been given by someone on
the other side. This reduces the validity of evidence as someone’s bias may influence how
they feel about certain evidence which has been given, which could lead to a miscarriage of
justice. This is shown in the Richard Latham QC case, where the chief prosecutor in a murder
trial was affectionate and sent private notes to Richard Latham (the barrister). This meant
she developed bias opinions and consequently, the case collapsed due to concerns that her
impartial opinion may have influenced other jury members.
Next, the validity of evidence may be doubted in terms of the circumstances surrounding it.
For example, if the evidence is given by a ‘bad character’ (evidence of, or disposition
towards misconduct), then the jury/ magistrates may choose to ignore this evidence, even
though it may have been vital in the case. However, if the circumstances were different, and
the evidence was presented by someone else who wasn’t a bad character, it is more likely to
Examine information for validity (15)
Key Terms:
Validity – Is the information truthful and correct?
When examining information for validity, we test it in regard to bias, opinion,
circumstances, currency and accuracy.
Bias and opinion – is the information objective and impartial? Does it contain an opinion
that isn’t true/ fair?
Circumstances – can the information be explained differently depending on different
situations?
Currency and accuracy – is the information relevant, up to date (current) and correct?
Tips of what to look out for in the brief and possible themes of evaluating it:
Famous people – if there are famous people in the scenario, there will be bias and opinions
and a lot more media attention. Whereas, if the circumstances were different and they were
not famous, the police will not rush the investigation as there won’t be as much pressure
from the public and the media.
Weather – if the time of day is the morning, then the weather will be clear and it will be
easier to see evidence and see what is happening, meaning a more accurate story. Whereas,
in different circumstances and it was dark and during the night, it may be hard to see what
is happening and the evidence is not as reliable and accurate.
Amount of evidence – if there a lack of evidence, then it will not be as accurate and is more
likely to be affected by opinions and bias as people will only focus on that specific evidence.
Whereas, if there was a lot of evidence it will be stronger and less likely affected by bias as
people wouldn’t have an opinion on every piece of evidence.
Media – the media will create bias views within the public and will also put pressure on the
police to solve the case, which will make them rush investigations. Whereas in different
circumstances and there was not any media, there would be less pressure to solve the case
as quickly as less people would be aware of it and be having opinions on it, meaning the
investigation will be carried out more thoroughly, so more accurate results etc.
Desperate? - if the police are desperate to solve the case, then they will make rushed
decisions which could result in less accurate evidence etc. Whereas in different
circumstances, if they were not desperate they would take their time on the investigation
and go about solving it differently, possibly producing more accurate information.
, One suspect? - if the police only have one suspect, there will be more bias as people will
only have one person which they can develop opinions on and be biased against. This will
put pressure on the police to focus investigations on that one person, which means
evidence is only being tested to see if it matches that person, meaning less accurate results
and less valid evidence/ findings.
How long after case? - if the evidence is found a long time after the case happened, then it
will not be up to date and is not current and it will be less reliable and accurate. This will
negatively reduce the validity of the evidence as it may have been contaminated in that
time or have only recently got there. Whereas if the circumstances are different, and the
evidence is freshly discovered then it is more up to date and more likely to be relevant to
the case, meaning it is more accurate and more valid.
Majority verdict – if there is a majority verdict by the jury, it will be more valid because it is
more certain and there are more opinions all being in agreement. Whereas, if there was not
a majority verdict, there will be a lot of different opinions outweighing each other and the
verdict is not as accurate or reliable, so it is less valid.
VALIDITY OF EVIDENCE:
The two types of evidence are physical evidence (anything we take from the scene) and
testimonial evidence (oral statements provided by people connected to the case).
The evidence in court should be the only factor affecting the jury/ magistrate’s decision.
However, this is not always the case as people have may prior knowledge and pre-existing
opinions. However, this is being countered by the CPS ensuring evidence is admissible,
reliable and credible. This will ensure the evidence is acceptable and accurate.
In regards to the bias and opinion of evidence, the validity may be doubted. One example of
how this may limit the validity is through juror infatuation. This may influence evidence
because if a jury member is affectionate towards someone giving evidence, they will be bias
and develop an impartial opinion and will be more likely to agree with the barrister and
their evidence. This is an issue in regards to evidence as the jury may dismiss any other
evidence (regardless of how relevant it is) purely because it has been given by someone on
the other side. This reduces the validity of evidence as someone’s bias may influence how
they feel about certain evidence which has been given, which could lead to a miscarriage of
justice. This is shown in the Richard Latham QC case, where the chief prosecutor in a murder
trial was affectionate and sent private notes to Richard Latham (the barrister). This meant
she developed bias opinions and consequently, the case collapsed due to concerns that her
impartial opinion may have influenced other jury members.
Next, the validity of evidence may be doubted in terms of the circumstances surrounding it.
For example, if the evidence is given by a ‘bad character’ (evidence of, or disposition
towards misconduct), then the jury/ magistrates may choose to ignore this evidence, even
though it may have been vital in the case. However, if the circumstances were different, and
the evidence was presented by someone else who wasn’t a bad character, it is more likely to
