A.C 2.4: Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases
Media
Media is an external influence that can affect the outcome of trial. In
creating moral panics around the types of crimes and certain individuals
or groups. For instance, the moral panic that ensued after the clash of the
Mods and Rockers in the 1960’s, with the media reporting ‘Wild Ones
Invade Seaside – 97 arrests’, when in fact there were only 24. As a result
of moral panics, it can lead to courts sentencing harder and creating new
offences. For example, the London Riots (2011) indicates when a
magistrates or judge can enforce deterrent sentences as a result of media
pressure. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 [CAA], enforced by a trial
judge, restricts media reporting of trials in England. This is so the jury do
not have a preconceived opinion from the media reports. Otherwise, a
prejudice jury will obstruct the administration of justice. Moreover, under
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, every defendant has the right to a
fair trial, including the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits the
media from reporting on trials in a way that might prejudice the jury
against the defendant. The main principle in trials is that the jury
determine the guilt, not the media. If this is not followed, a ‘trial by media’
can ensue, where the jury are influenced by erroneous media reports,
persuading their verdict. The case of Christopher Jefferies highlights when
the jury are influenced by the media, rather than the evidence. As he
became the victim of a barrage of new reports labelling him ‘The Strange
Mr Jefferies’ and accusing him of t being the murder, despite him being
innocent. Another example is the Taylor sisters, who were also victims of
falsified and inaccurate news reporting, which nearly led to a life sentence
for murder they did not commit. However, the trial judge quashed their
convictions on the basis that news reporting was ‘extensive, sensational
and inaccurate’, according to The Independent 15th June 1993.
Political Influences
As it contains the most MPs, government policies will dictate law-making,
despite parliament who pass legislation (Acts of Parliament) – an example
of an external influence. Instances where political influence has affected
the outcome of cases, is the government creating new offences, such as
the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which led to handguns being
banned. As a result of the Dunblane Massacre, where sixteen children
were murdered by a gunman in their school, who was carrying a legally
held handgun. When social attitudes change, parliament may amend or
repeal existing law, for example the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
with the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In it, homosexual acts between
consenting male adults were permitted- aged 21 or over. The government
can increase or decrease sentences for offences, evident in the London
Riots, where a woman was imprisoned for five months after accepting a
pair of shorts that had been looted, later reduced to a community order
(www.equaltimes.org). The government may issue Public Interest
Immunity Certificates (PIIC) to prevent sensitive information from being
revealed in court, so that it won't harm the public interest. It remains up
to the trial judge to decide whether to comply with PIICs, as in the case of
Conway v Rimmer (1968), where the House of Lords held the courts were
Media
Media is an external influence that can affect the outcome of trial. In
creating moral panics around the types of crimes and certain individuals
or groups. For instance, the moral panic that ensued after the clash of the
Mods and Rockers in the 1960’s, with the media reporting ‘Wild Ones
Invade Seaside – 97 arrests’, when in fact there were only 24. As a result
of moral panics, it can lead to courts sentencing harder and creating new
offences. For example, the London Riots (2011) indicates when a
magistrates or judge can enforce deterrent sentences as a result of media
pressure. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 [CAA], enforced by a trial
judge, restricts media reporting of trials in England. This is so the jury do
not have a preconceived opinion from the media reports. Otherwise, a
prejudice jury will obstruct the administration of justice. Moreover, under
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, every defendant has the right to a
fair trial, including the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits the
media from reporting on trials in a way that might prejudice the jury
against the defendant. The main principle in trials is that the jury
determine the guilt, not the media. If this is not followed, a ‘trial by media’
can ensue, where the jury are influenced by erroneous media reports,
persuading their verdict. The case of Christopher Jefferies highlights when
the jury are influenced by the media, rather than the evidence. As he
became the victim of a barrage of new reports labelling him ‘The Strange
Mr Jefferies’ and accusing him of t being the murder, despite him being
innocent. Another example is the Taylor sisters, who were also victims of
falsified and inaccurate news reporting, which nearly led to a life sentence
for murder they did not commit. However, the trial judge quashed their
convictions on the basis that news reporting was ‘extensive, sensational
and inaccurate’, according to The Independent 15th June 1993.
Political Influences
As it contains the most MPs, government policies will dictate law-making,
despite parliament who pass legislation (Acts of Parliament) – an example
of an external influence. Instances where political influence has affected
the outcome of cases, is the government creating new offences, such as
the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which led to handguns being
banned. As a result of the Dunblane Massacre, where sixteen children
were murdered by a gunman in their school, who was carrying a legally
held handgun. When social attitudes change, parliament may amend or
repeal existing law, for example the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
with the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In it, homosexual acts between
consenting male adults were permitted- aged 21 or over. The government
can increase or decrease sentences for offences, evident in the London
Riots, where a woman was imprisoned for five months after accepting a
pair of shorts that had been looted, later reduced to a community order
(www.equaltimes.org). The government may issue Public Interest
Immunity Certificates (PIIC) to prevent sensitive information from being
revealed in court, so that it won't harm the public interest. It remains up
to the trial judge to decide whether to comply with PIICs, as in the case of
Conway v Rimmer (1968), where the House of Lords held the courts were
