AC3.2
Draw conclusions from information
A verdict is the final decision/ outcome of a case (whether they are guilty or not).
Safe verdict:
A safe verdict is a decision that has been reached on the basis of all relevant facts after a fair
trial has been conducted.
In order for there to be a safe verdict, evidence needs to be admissible (the evidence must
be allowed in court, for example properly obtained evidence is admissible, whereas illegally
obtained evidence is not admissible), reliable and credible.
Also, all legal procedures must have been followed correctly in order for there to be a safe
verdict.
Case – Alice Ruggles – safe verdict
Alice was found dead in her bathroom, and her ex-boyfriend Harry Dhillon was the
immediate suspect. The investigation was led by DCI Theaker, and found DNA evidence (his
and Alice’s blood) in his car which proved Harry’s guilt. The police also interviewed Harry,
which is when his story started to change and not match to his previous accounts of what
happened, thus raising suspicion. Harry was found guilty and charged with murder with a
life sentence. This illustrates how an investigation process can go right and lead to a safe
verdict after a proper investigation has been conducted. This case had a fair trial, as shown
by how the evidence was admissible, reliable and credible. This is because the evidence was
obtained during an interview which followed correct legal procedures and during a legal
search conducted fairly. This shows how all procedures were followed, and so the evidence
was correct, which led to a safe verdict and his rightful conviction of murder.
Just verdict:
A just verdict is a verdict that is deserved, lawful and proper. These are a true reflection of
what the outcome of the case should be, and are based on facts. Including, facts in issue
(what the case is about, for example how they were killed) and relevant facts (information
to help prove they are guilty of facts in issue, for example DNA on the weapon). This should
result in the guilty being found guilty and the innocent not being guilty.
The Double Jeopardy Law states once you have previously been tried for a crime, you
cannot be tried for it again. However, changes were made to this and allowed people to go
to trial again if there is new and compelling evidence to prove their involvement, thus
meaning more just verdicts.
, Case – Stephen Lawrence – double jeopardy/ just verdict
Stephen was killed in 1993 by a group of racists at a bus stop. The Lawrence family did a
private prosecution to get forensics, leading to 3 suspects going to court for his murder,
however, they were found not guilty and due to the Double Jeopardy Law they were
acquitted and were never to be charged of the murder again. The case reopened in 2006
and was led by Angela Gallop. New tapings from Stephen’s coat were analysed and found
fibres belonging to 2 suspects. The team re-examined old evidence bags which stored the
suspects clothes, and found the first flake of blood in the case belonging to Stephen, and
also taped the jacket and found a blood stain (from Stephen) on the inside back of the
jacket. They also found hairs on a suspect which contained blood, and Mitochondria hair
testing confirmed this belonged to Stephen. This new evidence meant 2 suspects were a
focus, but one was previously acquitted by the double jeopardy law, so forensic scientists
had to persuade the court to allow the trial, which then overturned the previous acquittal,
so they were found guilty in 2012. This is a just verdict as the outcome was based on the
new and compelling evidence which proved their guilt. If there was no second trial, then
they would not have been found guilty and would still be free.
Unsafe verdicts:
An unsafe verdict is a verdict or conviction which is not based on reliable and properly obtained
evidence (there is not a fair trial as something went wrong). This may result in a miscarriage of
justice, which is where someone who has previously been found guilty is now proven innocent
(usually due to fresh new evidence, for example new DNA testings). Next, an unsafe verdict may also
result in a wrongful conviction, which is where there is uncertainty regarding whether the accused is
innocent or guilty, usually because of something being incorrect during the trial process, thus
reducing the fairness of the trial. This means we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt whether
they are guilty or not
Case – Arvin McGee – wrongful conviction
A 20 year old woman was attacked in a laundrette in 1987 and was tied up, kidnapped and raped by
her offender. In 1989, Arvin McGee was wrongfully convicted of the crime after the victim was
originally shown several pictures of men matching her description of who the offender was.
However, she originally picked another person to be her offender, but the police told her that it
could’ve been Arvin who raped her due to semen samples which were collected. This led to the
victim changing her mind, and saying it was Arvin who had previously attacked her. However, DNA
testing of the semen samples proved his innocence and he was released. This is an example of a
wrongful conviction as the victim originally had uncertainty regarding who her offender was,
meaning there was uncertainty regarding whether Arvin was really guilty or not, and due to an error
within DNA testing, there was not a fair trial and Arvin appeared to be guilty. However, there is now
still reasonable doubt whether or not Arvin really was the offender and the original tests were
correct. The original conviction was an unsafe verdict as the evidence (semen tests) were later found
not to be reliable, and the victims opinion was influenced by the police interfering, thus resulting in a
not fair trial.
Draw conclusions from information
A verdict is the final decision/ outcome of a case (whether they are guilty or not).
Safe verdict:
A safe verdict is a decision that has been reached on the basis of all relevant facts after a fair
trial has been conducted.
In order for there to be a safe verdict, evidence needs to be admissible (the evidence must
be allowed in court, for example properly obtained evidence is admissible, whereas illegally
obtained evidence is not admissible), reliable and credible.
Also, all legal procedures must have been followed correctly in order for there to be a safe
verdict.
Case – Alice Ruggles – safe verdict
Alice was found dead in her bathroom, and her ex-boyfriend Harry Dhillon was the
immediate suspect. The investigation was led by DCI Theaker, and found DNA evidence (his
and Alice’s blood) in his car which proved Harry’s guilt. The police also interviewed Harry,
which is when his story started to change and not match to his previous accounts of what
happened, thus raising suspicion. Harry was found guilty and charged with murder with a
life sentence. This illustrates how an investigation process can go right and lead to a safe
verdict after a proper investigation has been conducted. This case had a fair trial, as shown
by how the evidence was admissible, reliable and credible. This is because the evidence was
obtained during an interview which followed correct legal procedures and during a legal
search conducted fairly. This shows how all procedures were followed, and so the evidence
was correct, which led to a safe verdict and his rightful conviction of murder.
Just verdict:
A just verdict is a verdict that is deserved, lawful and proper. These are a true reflection of
what the outcome of the case should be, and are based on facts. Including, facts in issue
(what the case is about, for example how they were killed) and relevant facts (information
to help prove they are guilty of facts in issue, for example DNA on the weapon). This should
result in the guilty being found guilty and the innocent not being guilty.
The Double Jeopardy Law states once you have previously been tried for a crime, you
cannot be tried for it again. However, changes were made to this and allowed people to go
to trial again if there is new and compelling evidence to prove their involvement, thus
meaning more just verdicts.
, Case – Stephen Lawrence – double jeopardy/ just verdict
Stephen was killed in 1993 by a group of racists at a bus stop. The Lawrence family did a
private prosecution to get forensics, leading to 3 suspects going to court for his murder,
however, they were found not guilty and due to the Double Jeopardy Law they were
acquitted and were never to be charged of the murder again. The case reopened in 2006
and was led by Angela Gallop. New tapings from Stephen’s coat were analysed and found
fibres belonging to 2 suspects. The team re-examined old evidence bags which stored the
suspects clothes, and found the first flake of blood in the case belonging to Stephen, and
also taped the jacket and found a blood stain (from Stephen) on the inside back of the
jacket. They also found hairs on a suspect which contained blood, and Mitochondria hair
testing confirmed this belonged to Stephen. This new evidence meant 2 suspects were a
focus, but one was previously acquitted by the double jeopardy law, so forensic scientists
had to persuade the court to allow the trial, which then overturned the previous acquittal,
so they were found guilty in 2012. This is a just verdict as the outcome was based on the
new and compelling evidence which proved their guilt. If there was no second trial, then
they would not have been found guilty and would still be free.
Unsafe verdicts:
An unsafe verdict is a verdict or conviction which is not based on reliable and properly obtained
evidence (there is not a fair trial as something went wrong). This may result in a miscarriage of
justice, which is where someone who has previously been found guilty is now proven innocent
(usually due to fresh new evidence, for example new DNA testings). Next, an unsafe verdict may also
result in a wrongful conviction, which is where there is uncertainty regarding whether the accused is
innocent or guilty, usually because of something being incorrect during the trial process, thus
reducing the fairness of the trial. This means we cannot be sure beyond reasonable doubt whether
they are guilty or not
Case – Arvin McGee – wrongful conviction
A 20 year old woman was attacked in a laundrette in 1987 and was tied up, kidnapped and raped by
her offender. In 1989, Arvin McGee was wrongfully convicted of the crime after the victim was
originally shown several pictures of men matching her description of who the offender was.
However, she originally picked another person to be her offender, but the police told her that it
could’ve been Arvin who raped her due to semen samples which were collected. This led to the
victim changing her mind, and saying it was Arvin who had previously attacked her. However, DNA
testing of the semen samples proved his innocence and he was released. This is an example of a
wrongful conviction as the victim originally had uncertainty regarding who her offender was,
meaning there was uncertainty regarding whether Arvin was really guilty or not, and due to an error
within DNA testing, there was not a fair trial and Arvin appeared to be guilty. However, there is now
still reasonable doubt whether or not Arvin really was the offender and the original tests were
correct. The original conviction was an unsafe verdict as the evidence (semen tests) were later found
not to be reliable, and the victims opinion was influenced by the police interfering, thus resulting in a
not fair trial.
