AC2.4
Assess key influences affecting the outcomes
of criminal cases
Evidence
• Juries and magistrates have to consider all evidence presented to them in court. –
The CPS would have already decided that they think there is sufficient evidence to
secure a conviction
• By the end of the trial, the jury/ magistrates have to decide whether the defendant is
guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ on all aspects of the charge. – if the jury/
magistrate have reasonable doubt then the defendant must be acquitted
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution – it is up to the prosecution to
convince the juries/ magistrates.
Case – Larissa Bell
A scottish waitress who danced on top of a smashed ambulance. She was accused of
criminal damage after the vehicle was taken out of service for 34 days due to a shattered
released in court. All four individuals were charged with criminal damage. However, the CPS
confirmed that they offered no evidence on the case.
Evidence – example - Double Jeopardy Law
• This law states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime
• However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that certain serious crimes, including
murder, rape and kidnapping can be retried due to ‘new and compelling’ evidence.
• ‘New’ evidence is evidence that was not presented at the original trial.
‘Compelling’ is if it is reliable and substantial and it appears to strongly support the
case against the defendant.
Case – Stephen Lawrence
Stephen Lawrence was killed at a bus stop by a group of racist youths. 3 suspects were
originally in court but were found not guilty, however due to the double jeopardy law were
acquitted to never be charged again. However new evidence found flakes of blood with blue
fibres in the bottom of the evidence bag. Hairs were also examined which was found on the
suspects clothes, and it was confirmed to belong to Stephen. As one of these suspects were
acquitted previously, the forensic scientists had to persuade the court to let them go to
court. The new evidence was then put to the court of appeal and the original acquitted
‘safety’ of one of the suspects was overturned, and they were found guilty and received a
life sentence.
, Media
An accused person is innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial where the jury have only
considered the evidence presented to them in court.
It is not a fair trial if the jury has been influenced by media reports – this is because the
media are often biased and mis-accurate. This is an issue as there is the risk that members of
the jury will be influenced by these reports and consequently develop bias opinions before
the trial and pre-assumptions of whether they are guilty. This could then influence their final
verdict when deciding whether the person is guilty or not. This could lead to a miscarriage of
justice.
Case – Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox was wrongly accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, however the media
exaggerated the story and tabloids made Amanda Knox look like she was the offender and
was in no way innocent. The media renamed Amanda ‘Foxy Noxy’ to show people what they
thought of her and to make like her look like a crazy offender. In 2015, the court found
Amanda not guilty due to ‘lack of biological traces’ and they ‘blamed media attention’ for
blowing the case out of precaution.
Collin Stagg
After this case, Sir Harry Ognal QC, the judge who repeatedly spoke out against the media in
2008 after Robert Napper was convicted of Rachel Nickel’s media. He said that ‘media
hysteria’ surrounding the case resulted in the police being faced with ‘overwhelming
pressure to identify the killer and and establish a compelling case’, despite the police having
a ‘desperate of evidence’. This was an issue as it meant that the police were under pressure
to quickly find the killer, so they had to rush the investigation and were forced to launch
their honeytrap without properly planning the operation and investigating the ‘suspect’ fully,
as they had to maintain their reputation and make it appear to the media as if they were
certain on the identity of the offender. This media influence could have also influenced the
jury during the trial if it wasn’t stopped, as they may have agreed that Collin was responsible
and convicted him as a result of the media influencing the police to only focus on one
suspect. This could have led to a miscarriage of justice, which would have impacted Collin
but also the reputation of both the police and the media. Sir Harry Ognal also stated that a
‘campaign of innuendo’ were included in sections of the press that ‘repeatidly invited the
public to conclude that Stagg had got away with the media’
London Riots
During this case, the media influenced the sentences which the judge and magistrates
handed out. As a result, these sentences were often higher and more severe than average,
due to the police influencing the publics perception of what happened and making people
look worse. This is shown by Ursula Nevin, who was jailed for 5 months after she admitted to
Assess key influences affecting the outcomes
of criminal cases
Evidence
• Juries and magistrates have to consider all evidence presented to them in court. –
The CPS would have already decided that they think there is sufficient evidence to
secure a conviction
• By the end of the trial, the jury/ magistrates have to decide whether the defendant is
guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ on all aspects of the charge. – if the jury/
magistrate have reasonable doubt then the defendant must be acquitted
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution – it is up to the prosecution to
convince the juries/ magistrates.
Case – Larissa Bell
A scottish waitress who danced on top of a smashed ambulance. She was accused of
criminal damage after the vehicle was taken out of service for 34 days due to a shattered
released in court. All four individuals were charged with criminal damage. However, the CPS
confirmed that they offered no evidence on the case.
Evidence – example - Double Jeopardy Law
• This law states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime
• However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that certain serious crimes, including
murder, rape and kidnapping can be retried due to ‘new and compelling’ evidence.
• ‘New’ evidence is evidence that was not presented at the original trial.
‘Compelling’ is if it is reliable and substantial and it appears to strongly support the
case against the defendant.
Case – Stephen Lawrence
Stephen Lawrence was killed at a bus stop by a group of racist youths. 3 suspects were
originally in court but were found not guilty, however due to the double jeopardy law were
acquitted to never be charged again. However new evidence found flakes of blood with blue
fibres in the bottom of the evidence bag. Hairs were also examined which was found on the
suspects clothes, and it was confirmed to belong to Stephen. As one of these suspects were
acquitted previously, the forensic scientists had to persuade the court to let them go to
court. The new evidence was then put to the court of appeal and the original acquitted
‘safety’ of one of the suspects was overturned, and they were found guilty and received a
life sentence.
, Media
An accused person is innocent until proven guilty after a fair trial where the jury have only
considered the evidence presented to them in court.
It is not a fair trial if the jury has been influenced by media reports – this is because the
media are often biased and mis-accurate. This is an issue as there is the risk that members of
the jury will be influenced by these reports and consequently develop bias opinions before
the trial and pre-assumptions of whether they are guilty. This could then influence their final
verdict when deciding whether the person is guilty or not. This could lead to a miscarriage of
justice.
Case – Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox was wrongly accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher, however the media
exaggerated the story and tabloids made Amanda Knox look like she was the offender and
was in no way innocent. The media renamed Amanda ‘Foxy Noxy’ to show people what they
thought of her and to make like her look like a crazy offender. In 2015, the court found
Amanda not guilty due to ‘lack of biological traces’ and they ‘blamed media attention’ for
blowing the case out of precaution.
Collin Stagg
After this case, Sir Harry Ognal QC, the judge who repeatedly spoke out against the media in
2008 after Robert Napper was convicted of Rachel Nickel’s media. He said that ‘media
hysteria’ surrounding the case resulted in the police being faced with ‘overwhelming
pressure to identify the killer and and establish a compelling case’, despite the police having
a ‘desperate of evidence’. This was an issue as it meant that the police were under pressure
to quickly find the killer, so they had to rush the investigation and were forced to launch
their honeytrap without properly planning the operation and investigating the ‘suspect’ fully,
as they had to maintain their reputation and make it appear to the media as if they were
certain on the identity of the offender. This media influence could have also influenced the
jury during the trial if it wasn’t stopped, as they may have agreed that Collin was responsible
and convicted him as a result of the media influencing the police to only focus on one
suspect. This could have led to a miscarriage of justice, which would have impacted Collin
but also the reputation of both the police and the media. Sir Harry Ognal also stated that a
‘campaign of innuendo’ were included in sections of the press that ‘repeatidly invited the
public to conclude that Stagg had got away with the media’
London Riots
During this case, the media influenced the sentences which the judge and magistrates
handed out. As a result, these sentences were often higher and more severe than average,
due to the police influencing the publics perception of what happened and making people
look worse. This is shown by Ursula Nevin, who was jailed for 5 months after she admitted to
