GRACE GODDARD
Unit 3 AC3.2 AC3.2 Draw conclusions from information
- Just verdicts
- Miscarriages of justice
- Safe verdicts
- Just sentencing
From this information it is possible to conclude that that sentence is just/unjust because…
(i) Importance of a fair, and just legal system
- Lays the structure and foundation for society to function
- Ensures protection of individual rights
- Maintains social order
- Supports minimising miscarriages of justice through safeguards such as appeals, reviews,
judicial oversight, forensic standards.
(ii) Just / unjust verdicts
Verdicts influence public confidence, with an unjust verdict affecting trust within the justice system
Definition:
A just verdict is a lawful decision that reflects the truth of a case, and the person deserves the
concluded verdict.
- Relies on credible evidence, and accurate interpretation of facts.
- Finds the guilty guilty, and the innocent not guilty
An unjust verdict is an unfair outcome and is a wrongful convection, not morally correct.
- Arises from inadequate investigations or system errors
Case study example: Billy Dunlop
- In 1989, Billy Dunlop murdered his ex-girlfriend Julie Hogg, hiding her body behind a bath
panel. Ann Ming (Hogg’s mother), found her body in 1990 despite the police conducting a
search.
- Dunlop was tried for the murder twice, however, the juries failed to reach a verdict because
of a lack of evidence, and Dunlop denied the murder.
This resulted in the unjust verdict of Dunlop being acquitted.
- During this period, the “double jeopardy” law was still enforced, preventing Dunlop from
being retried for the same crime. In 1999, Dunlop was in prison for a separate assault, and
confessed to a prison officer he had killed Julie.
Ann Ming launched a campaign to change the double jeopardy law. Over 15 years this resulted in
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 partially abolishing the double jeopardy law. Made retrospective,
and so Dunlop could be retried.
- In 2006 Dunlop pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in imprisonment, resulting in a
morally correct, just verdict.
Indicates that:
- Legal protections, as mentioned in the double jeopardy law, can prevent justice.
- Failures of police investigation in the early stages of a case can result in injustice.
Why was it unjust?
Unit 3 AC3.2 AC3.2 Draw conclusions from information
- Just verdicts
- Miscarriages of justice
- Safe verdicts
- Just sentencing
From this information it is possible to conclude that that sentence is just/unjust because…
(i) Importance of a fair, and just legal system
- Lays the structure and foundation for society to function
- Ensures protection of individual rights
- Maintains social order
- Supports minimising miscarriages of justice through safeguards such as appeals, reviews,
judicial oversight, forensic standards.
(ii) Just / unjust verdicts
Verdicts influence public confidence, with an unjust verdict affecting trust within the justice system
Definition:
A just verdict is a lawful decision that reflects the truth of a case, and the person deserves the
concluded verdict.
- Relies on credible evidence, and accurate interpretation of facts.
- Finds the guilty guilty, and the innocent not guilty
An unjust verdict is an unfair outcome and is a wrongful convection, not morally correct.
- Arises from inadequate investigations or system errors
Case study example: Billy Dunlop
- In 1989, Billy Dunlop murdered his ex-girlfriend Julie Hogg, hiding her body behind a bath
panel. Ann Ming (Hogg’s mother), found her body in 1990 despite the police conducting a
search.
- Dunlop was tried for the murder twice, however, the juries failed to reach a verdict because
of a lack of evidence, and Dunlop denied the murder.
This resulted in the unjust verdict of Dunlop being acquitted.
- During this period, the “double jeopardy” law was still enforced, preventing Dunlop from
being retried for the same crime. In 1999, Dunlop was in prison for a separate assault, and
confessed to a prison officer he had killed Julie.
Ann Ming launched a campaign to change the double jeopardy law. Over 15 years this resulted in
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 partially abolishing the double jeopardy law. Made retrospective,
and so Dunlop could be retried.
- In 2006 Dunlop pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in imprisonment, resulting in a
morally correct, just verdict.
Indicates that:
- Legal protections, as mentioned in the double jeopardy law, can prevent justice.
- Failures of police investigation in the early stages of a case can result in injustice.
Why was it unjust?
