AC 3.2: Draw Conclusions from Information
A safe verdict is a verdict which is fair and reliable, having been reached by a jury after a fair trial. For
the trial to be considered fair, all evidence must have been admissible in court and court procedures
must have been followed properly. For example, the jury must have been selected and sworn in
correctly. Reliability means that the source is precise and exact, and credible means that the source
is likely to be believed.
An example that can be applied to safe verdicts is that case of Gareth Hughes. After a woman was
found murdered in a park, Gareth Hughes was arrested due to matching the offender profile and his
previous convictions against women. The safety of several features of the case was called into
question, such as the preservation of the crime scene – journalists had arrived within 30 minutes of
the woman’s body having been discovered, leading to likely contamination, and the scene was not
properly secured. Furthermore, despite Hughes’ DNA being found on the red scarf discovered near
the scene, it couldn’t be certain whether this was a result of it being Hughes’ scarf or of cross-
contamination from the evidence bag containing Hughes’ shoes. As well as this, the shoe print
discovered in the park believed to belong to Hughes could not be considered decisive evidence.
After all, he was a local man and though he could potentially be linked to the park, it doesn’t mean
he can be linked to the crime. Additionally, despite his profile matching, it does not make Hughes
guilty, and a note from a juror to the judge revealed that the decision of many in the jury was
influenced by the media. As a result, this raises questions as to whether Hughes’ conviction was truly
safe.
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a suspect is unfairly charged and convicted of a crime that they
did not commit. If there is later evidence to demonstrate their wrongful conviction, then this is
considered a miscarriage of justice.
An applicable case study to Miscarriages of Justice is the Birmingham Six. In November 1974, two
Birmingham pubs were bombed, and it was assumed that six Irish men living nearby were guilty.
Whilst in custody, they were deprived of food, sleep, and were tortured. As a result, four confessed
to the bombings. In March 1976, the six’s outstanding appeals were dismissed. Then, in 1985, the TV
programme ‘World in Action’ led to doubt on their convictions when a documentary was created
detailing the Birmingham Six. Years later in 1988, the Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be
safe, and that there should be no more appeals. However, journalists and campaigners continued to
produce new evidence and cast doubt on these convictions so that when a new appeal was launched
in 1990, fresh evidence of police fabrication and wrongful exclusions of evidence was available.
Along with this, challenges to both confessions and forensic evidence. The Court of Appeal said that
“in light of fresh scientific evidence … these convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory.” In 1991,
the six were released after 16 years in prison.
A just verdict is a verdict that has been delivered lawfully and is deserved. It is a verdict that does
justice to the facts of the case. Approximately 130,000 cases are held before a court each year, and
most are decided appropriately. On other occasions, it can take years for justice to be served, such
as in the case of Billy Dunlop:
In 1989, Julie Hogg was strangled and later found behind bath panelling 80 days after she had gone
missing. Billy Dunlop was tried twice for her murder in 1991, but both times the jury failed to reach a
verdict. As a result, Dunlop was formally acquitted under the convention that the prosecution
doesn’t ask for a third trial. Later, Dunlop admitted to the crime, but the 800-year-old Double
Jeopardy rule (which prevents anyone acquitted being retried for the same crime) meant that he
was only prosecuted for perjury. In 2005, after extensive campaigning from Julie’s mother, the rule
was abolished, and Dunlop was jailed for life for the murder of Julie Hogg.
The case study of Alan Blythe is not only an example of a just verdict, but also an example of jury
equity, which means the jury delivering a verdict based on their morals rather than the law. In this
A safe verdict is a verdict which is fair and reliable, having been reached by a jury after a fair trial. For
the trial to be considered fair, all evidence must have been admissible in court and court procedures
must have been followed properly. For example, the jury must have been selected and sworn in
correctly. Reliability means that the source is precise and exact, and credible means that the source
is likely to be believed.
An example that can be applied to safe verdicts is that case of Gareth Hughes. After a woman was
found murdered in a park, Gareth Hughes was arrested due to matching the offender profile and his
previous convictions against women. The safety of several features of the case was called into
question, such as the preservation of the crime scene – journalists had arrived within 30 minutes of
the woman’s body having been discovered, leading to likely contamination, and the scene was not
properly secured. Furthermore, despite Hughes’ DNA being found on the red scarf discovered near
the scene, it couldn’t be certain whether this was a result of it being Hughes’ scarf or of cross-
contamination from the evidence bag containing Hughes’ shoes. As well as this, the shoe print
discovered in the park believed to belong to Hughes could not be considered decisive evidence.
After all, he was a local man and though he could potentially be linked to the park, it doesn’t mean
he can be linked to the crime. Additionally, despite his profile matching, it does not make Hughes
guilty, and a note from a juror to the judge revealed that the decision of many in the jury was
influenced by the media. As a result, this raises questions as to whether Hughes’ conviction was truly
safe.
A miscarriage of justice occurs when a suspect is unfairly charged and convicted of a crime that they
did not commit. If there is later evidence to demonstrate their wrongful conviction, then this is
considered a miscarriage of justice.
An applicable case study to Miscarriages of Justice is the Birmingham Six. In November 1974, two
Birmingham pubs were bombed, and it was assumed that six Irish men living nearby were guilty.
Whilst in custody, they were deprived of food, sleep, and were tortured. As a result, four confessed
to the bombings. In March 1976, the six’s outstanding appeals were dismissed. Then, in 1985, the TV
programme ‘World in Action’ led to doubt on their convictions when a documentary was created
detailing the Birmingham Six. Years later in 1988, the Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be
safe, and that there should be no more appeals. However, journalists and campaigners continued to
produce new evidence and cast doubt on these convictions so that when a new appeal was launched
in 1990, fresh evidence of police fabrication and wrongful exclusions of evidence was available.
Along with this, challenges to both confessions and forensic evidence. The Court of Appeal said that
“in light of fresh scientific evidence … these convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory.” In 1991,
the six were released after 16 years in prison.
A just verdict is a verdict that has been delivered lawfully and is deserved. It is a verdict that does
justice to the facts of the case. Approximately 130,000 cases are held before a court each year, and
most are decided appropriately. On other occasions, it can take years for justice to be served, such
as in the case of Billy Dunlop:
In 1989, Julie Hogg was strangled and later found behind bath panelling 80 days after she had gone
missing. Billy Dunlop was tried twice for her murder in 1991, but both times the jury failed to reach a
verdict. As a result, Dunlop was formally acquitted under the convention that the prosecution
doesn’t ask for a third trial. Later, Dunlop admitted to the crime, but the 800-year-old Double
Jeopardy rule (which prevents anyone acquitted being retried for the same crime) meant that he
was only prosecuted for perjury. In 2005, after extensive campaigning from Julie’s mother, the rule
was abolished, and Dunlop was jailed for life for the murder of Julie Hogg.
The case study of Alan Blythe is not only an example of a just verdict, but also an example of jury
equity, which means the jury delivering a verdict based on their morals rather than the law. In this
