A.C 3.2: Draw conclusion from information
Just Verdicts:
According to the evidence presented, a just verdict would be one where
the jury reaches the right verdict. Ideally, this verdict should be in
accordance with the law and reflect the facts of the case. A person should
be found guilty if the evidence indicates that they are guilty, and innocent
if the evidence does not suggest that. An issue though, is that there are
instances where our criminal justice system has clearly failed to award a
just verdict. For example, the case of Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox was
convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher who had been
found dead in their shared apartment in Italy, 2007. Amanda and her
former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both sentenced to 26 and 25
years in prison after being found guilty of the murder of Kercher. Though
in 2011, both were acquitted and released. However, Knox was compelled
to stand trial for the murder anew in 2013 by the Italian final Court of
Appeal, which overturned her acquittal. Meaning that she was again found
guilty of murder in February 2014 with an enforced sentence of 28.5
years, though the Italian Supreme court once again overturned her
conviction in 2015. Whilst in the hands of Italian investigative officers,
Knox accused them of bullying and abuse. During the trials, the
prosecuting barrister explicated that Amanda was a sex-crazed weed
smoker, who was a ‘she-devil’- which later led to her conviction in 2009.
Thus, showing that not only was it an unjust verdict, on the basis that her
image was tarnished by the media, which the prosecuting barrister used
to coax the jury into a turning into a guilty verdict. It was a miscarriage of
justice. Moreover, it demonstrates that international law may not always
make the correct decision based on the evidence, or lack thereof. As the
prosecution’s case was that all the DNA that would have been left by Knox
was cleaned away, so there was no evidence to suggest her guilty of the
murder. The double jeopardy laws made it so unjust verdicts could occur,
as seen in the case of Billy Dunlop. It was deemed that the double
jeopardy law could stop the courts from going constantly after a person if
they were found guilty. However, in this case the issue arises because the
evidence of a ‘not guilty’ verdict, was unjust. On November 29, 1989, Julie
Hogg vanished without a trace. Her body was found three months after
her disappearance violently mutilated and assaulted. Dunlop, her former
boyfriend, had overwhelming evidence to suggest that he had carried out
the murder, for instance his fingerprints were on Hogg’s keys which were
found under his house floorboards. Tried twice, the jury could not make a
conclusive verdict, meaning he was acquitted of Julie’s murder.
Highlighting that even when juries have been given key evidence that
indicates that a defendant is guilty, they can fail to create justice- which
ultimately led to the unjust verdict of not guilty. Making matters worse,
whilst in prison for a separate crime, Dunlop confessed and boasted about
the murder, indicating his guilt to a guard but was protected under the
double jeopardy law. Not only did the MacPherson Report request in 1999
for the law to be repealed, Julie’s mother – Ann Ming, led a campaign to
change the law to allow a second trial where new and compelling
evidence emerges (Criminal Justice Act 2003). Success of the campaign
led to the reformation of the 800-year law, meaning Dunlop was finally
, A.C 3.2: Draw conclusion from information
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Julie Hogg. Emphasising
that though the law originally restricted justice to be served, it ultimately
led to a just verdict and a prosperous future for victims who had been
failed by the Criminal Justice System. Referring to the case of Stephen
Lawrence, whose murderers Gary Dobson and David Norris were able to
be convicted based on new evidence in 2012. Though a positive, it
highlights that the law takes a long time to come into effect, as Stephen
was murdered in 1993 and the perpetrators did not get found guilty until
2012. A covert surveillance of the murderers conducted by the
Metropolitan Police, which could not be used in court would have most
likely sped up the pace at which they were convicted. As both individuals
are seen in the video declaring very racist remarks about black people,
stating that they would ‘torture them and set them alight’. One of the
defendants even doing a stabbing motion with a knife that was identical
to that carried out on Stephen Lawrence. The case further highlighted the
assumption that the police are both racist and incompetent. As
information such as the five police officers at the scene were inept in first
aid, thus leading to a more rapid decline in Stephen’s condition. The
MacPherson Report (1999) also reported that there was institutionalised
racism and that the internal police review considered the police to be
‘whitewash’. An initial officer on the case who was on charge temporarily,
lacked any urgency and was most likely the reason a search team was not
made aware that weapons were being stored in the suspects homes.
Although, in an interview with Gary Dobson the police officer was very
articulate and posed, aiming questions such as “There were presence of
fibres on your jacket, identical to those of a red polo shirt won by Stephen
Lawrence at the time he was murdered, can you explain that?”, in which
Dobson remained silent the entire time. The police officer was clear in
telling Dobson his rights, and that the jury may be able to take adverse
inferences, so that the defence of Dobson had no appeal opportunities.
Showing that despite the accusations of racism, there were instances
where individuals in the police conducted their profession in the interests
of the victim. After the revelation of the institutionalised racism, the
family campaigned for justice and the Race Relations Amendment Act
2000 was passed, which meant that a duty was imposed on public bodies
to promise equality, such as the police. Alan Blythe is an example where
jury equity can result in a just verdict, since juries have the right to
impose a verdict, they believe is fair, without being questioned about it.
Even if the verdict nullifies the judge. Blythe was a charged with
cultivating cannabis with the intent to supply. His explanation was that his
wife, Judith suffered from terminal sclerosis and cannabis was the only
thing that would ease her wracking pain; fearing that without the illegal
substance she would take her own life. The judge in the case directed that
duress of circumstance was not available as a defence against the
charges of cannabis cultivation, finally instructing the jury to find Mr
Blythe guilty. Despite the judge’s recommendation, the jury returned a
verdict of not guilty on all charges other than cannabis possession. Which
shows that the jury looked upon their own morals when deciding the
verdict, whilst knowing Blythe had broken the law. It is more likely that a
Just Verdicts:
According to the evidence presented, a just verdict would be one where
the jury reaches the right verdict. Ideally, this verdict should be in
accordance with the law and reflect the facts of the case. A person should
be found guilty if the evidence indicates that they are guilty, and innocent
if the evidence does not suggest that. An issue though, is that there are
instances where our criminal justice system has clearly failed to award a
just verdict. For example, the case of Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox was
convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher who had been
found dead in their shared apartment in Italy, 2007. Amanda and her
former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were both sentenced to 26 and 25
years in prison after being found guilty of the murder of Kercher. Though
in 2011, both were acquitted and released. However, Knox was compelled
to stand trial for the murder anew in 2013 by the Italian final Court of
Appeal, which overturned her acquittal. Meaning that she was again found
guilty of murder in February 2014 with an enforced sentence of 28.5
years, though the Italian Supreme court once again overturned her
conviction in 2015. Whilst in the hands of Italian investigative officers,
Knox accused them of bullying and abuse. During the trials, the
prosecuting barrister explicated that Amanda was a sex-crazed weed
smoker, who was a ‘she-devil’- which later led to her conviction in 2009.
Thus, showing that not only was it an unjust verdict, on the basis that her
image was tarnished by the media, which the prosecuting barrister used
to coax the jury into a turning into a guilty verdict. It was a miscarriage of
justice. Moreover, it demonstrates that international law may not always
make the correct decision based on the evidence, or lack thereof. As the
prosecution’s case was that all the DNA that would have been left by Knox
was cleaned away, so there was no evidence to suggest her guilty of the
murder. The double jeopardy laws made it so unjust verdicts could occur,
as seen in the case of Billy Dunlop. It was deemed that the double
jeopardy law could stop the courts from going constantly after a person if
they were found guilty. However, in this case the issue arises because the
evidence of a ‘not guilty’ verdict, was unjust. On November 29, 1989, Julie
Hogg vanished without a trace. Her body was found three months after
her disappearance violently mutilated and assaulted. Dunlop, her former
boyfriend, had overwhelming evidence to suggest that he had carried out
the murder, for instance his fingerprints were on Hogg’s keys which were
found under his house floorboards. Tried twice, the jury could not make a
conclusive verdict, meaning he was acquitted of Julie’s murder.
Highlighting that even when juries have been given key evidence that
indicates that a defendant is guilty, they can fail to create justice- which
ultimately led to the unjust verdict of not guilty. Making matters worse,
whilst in prison for a separate crime, Dunlop confessed and boasted about
the murder, indicating his guilt to a guard but was protected under the
double jeopardy law. Not only did the MacPherson Report request in 1999
for the law to be repealed, Julie’s mother – Ann Ming, led a campaign to
change the law to allow a second trial where new and compelling
evidence emerges (Criminal Justice Act 2003). Success of the campaign
led to the reformation of the 800-year law, meaning Dunlop was finally
, A.C 3.2: Draw conclusion from information
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Julie Hogg. Emphasising
that though the law originally restricted justice to be served, it ultimately
led to a just verdict and a prosperous future for victims who had been
failed by the Criminal Justice System. Referring to the case of Stephen
Lawrence, whose murderers Gary Dobson and David Norris were able to
be convicted based on new evidence in 2012. Though a positive, it
highlights that the law takes a long time to come into effect, as Stephen
was murdered in 1993 and the perpetrators did not get found guilty until
2012. A covert surveillance of the murderers conducted by the
Metropolitan Police, which could not be used in court would have most
likely sped up the pace at which they were convicted. As both individuals
are seen in the video declaring very racist remarks about black people,
stating that they would ‘torture them and set them alight’. One of the
defendants even doing a stabbing motion with a knife that was identical
to that carried out on Stephen Lawrence. The case further highlighted the
assumption that the police are both racist and incompetent. As
information such as the five police officers at the scene were inept in first
aid, thus leading to a more rapid decline in Stephen’s condition. The
MacPherson Report (1999) also reported that there was institutionalised
racism and that the internal police review considered the police to be
‘whitewash’. An initial officer on the case who was on charge temporarily,
lacked any urgency and was most likely the reason a search team was not
made aware that weapons were being stored in the suspects homes.
Although, in an interview with Gary Dobson the police officer was very
articulate and posed, aiming questions such as “There were presence of
fibres on your jacket, identical to those of a red polo shirt won by Stephen
Lawrence at the time he was murdered, can you explain that?”, in which
Dobson remained silent the entire time. The police officer was clear in
telling Dobson his rights, and that the jury may be able to take adverse
inferences, so that the defence of Dobson had no appeal opportunities.
Showing that despite the accusations of racism, there were instances
where individuals in the police conducted their profession in the interests
of the victim. After the revelation of the institutionalised racism, the
family campaigned for justice and the Race Relations Amendment Act
2000 was passed, which meant that a duty was imposed on public bodies
to promise equality, such as the police. Alan Blythe is an example where
jury equity can result in a just verdict, since juries have the right to
impose a verdict, they believe is fair, without being questioned about it.
Even if the verdict nullifies the judge. Blythe was a charged with
cultivating cannabis with the intent to supply. His explanation was that his
wife, Judith suffered from terminal sclerosis and cannabis was the only
thing that would ease her wracking pain; fearing that without the illegal
substance she would take her own life. The judge in the case directed that
duress of circumstance was not available as a defence against the
charges of cannabis cultivation, finally instructing the jury to find Mr
Blythe guilty. Despite the judge’s recommendation, the jury returned a
verdict of not guilty on all charges other than cannabis possession. Which
shows that the jury looked upon their own morals when deciding the
verdict, whilst knowing Blythe had broken the law. It is more likely that a
