AC 3.2 Draw conclusions from information
15 MARKS = 1 HOUR 12 MINS OR 70 MINS
Conclusions: just verdicts, miscarriage, safe verdict, just sentencing
Evaluate: fairness, safety and outcome
Just and Unjust Verdicts
A just verdict is a decision that is reached through impartial judgement, fairly based on the
reliable facts of the case. The key elements of a just verdict are robust evidence, impartial
judgement and the adherence to legal standards. Robust evidence refers to evidence that
is clear, adheres to the full code test and is supportive of the verdict, this means that the
evidence should be of significant strength to support the decision made by the court.
Impartial judgement means that the verdict was reached without bias, based on objective
evidence, this ensures that the verdict is fair. Adherence to legal standards betokens that
the trial follows the laws and legislations of the courtroom. On the other hand, an unjust
verdict is a verdict that is untrue to the evidence or manifestly unjust. This happens when the
verdict is affected by procedural errors, bias or mishandling of evidence, causing the trial to
be unfair. Procedural errors refers to the errors that happen when the court does not follow
established legal proceedings during the trial, an example of a procedural error would be
when jurors are not given proper or inappropriate instructions. Bias is representative of the
preconceived notion that can impact the impartiality of the outcome, for example if the judge
has certain racial or gender bias’. Finally, mishandled evidence is evidence that was poorly
handled either through collection, analysis, evaluation or interpretation that can lead to a
fallacious decision, for example the contamination or tampering of evidence. A case that
showcases an unjust verdict initially, but eventually reaches justice for the victim is the case
of Stephen Lawrence. The first trial reached an unjust conclusion due to the case not being
significantly investigated, this was due to institutional racism among the metropolitan police
which is a form of bias,the police received 26 tip offs about the suspects within the first 48
hours, even though one of the suspects was seen with a bin liner, no arrests were made.
Additionally, the case was mishandled and there was a failure in leadership of the police,
meaning that there was not robust evidence in the trial. However in the second trial, new
compelling, robust and significant evidence for the case was discovered, for example a
small amount of Stephen Lawrence’s blood was found on the collar of one of the suspects
coats, linking him to the murder, additionally the jury decision was made without bias and
rules were explained properly to them. This meant that the standards for a just verdict were
achieved and a fair decision could be made. In conclusion the fair procedure and the new
reliable evidence is what led to Stephen Lawrence finally receiving justice after 19 years,
demonstrating fairness in a high profile case.
Miscarriage of Justice
A miscarriage of justice usually refers to an error in the judicial system that means that the
court could not lead to a just conclusion, especially when the verdict is guilty for someone
who is innocent. Miscarriages of justice not only have the power to impact the individual's
life, being able to damage their mental and physical health and their social relations, but it
can have an impact on society as a whole, like eroding public support in the justice system
and secondary trauma for the family of the victim. A miscarriage of justice usually occurs
, when serious errors occur which lead to wrongful convictions, a few examples of these
errors are: coerced or false confessions, eyewitness misidentifications, ineffective legal
representation or flawed forensic evidence. A coerced or false confession is when a
confession is obtained from the defendant through violent measures or other forms of
duress, a confession must be done from their own free will under no manipulation or
pressure in order for it to be considered valid. Accounting for over 70 percent of wrongful
convictions, eyewitness misidentification is when a witness identifies someone innocent
as a perpetrator. Additionally, ineffective legal representation is when lawyers and other
personnel actions negatively affect their client’s case, this can occur for example when they
argue a defence that is not legally valid, meaning that the defendant may not have proper
legal representation leading to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, flawed forensic evidence is
evidence that is unreliable or presented in a misleading manner. For example, when Roy
Meadow claimed that the chance that both of Sally Clark’s children died from SIDS was 1 in
72 million, which later proved incorrect but resulted in the wrongful charge and miscarriage
of justice towards Sally Clark. A case that displays a miscarriage of justice is the case of the
Birmingham 6. These were 6 men that were wrongly convicted for the murder of 21 peopleIt
is considered a miscarriage of justice because it was revealed a few years later after the trial
that the confessions that were used as evidence in court were coerced. An ex-constable
admitted that violent tactics were used to get confessions out of the men, this meant that the
confessions were under duress which invalidated them. Additionally, the Birmingham 6 may
have faced some prejudice due to two of them working with a member of the IRA and going
to pubs and bars that were known for having IRA members. It was later revealed that this
terrorist attack was committed by a member of the IRA but it is unknown who as an
individual was responsible for the murder of the 21 people. The impact of the overturning of
the outcome caused Superintendent George Reade and two other police officers to be
charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Additionally, the Home
Secretary set up a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1991 in response to the
case.This case shows that not only do miscarriages of justice have an impact on the
individuals but as society as a whole, causing new legislations, laws and campaigns to occur
which affect everyone.
Safe and Unsafe Verdicts
A safe verdict is one that is reached without flaws in the evidence or procedural errors in the
trial, meaning that it is accurate and reliable with a confident outcome. In order to reach a
safe verdict there must be procedural integrity. This is the principle that means that the trial
is conducted without significant errors and that the trial is seen as fair by all parties.
Procedural integrity maintains public confidence in the justice system and ensures that the
trial is treated equitably and fairly. Additionally, there must be reliable evidence. This means
that evidence is presented in a clear and concise manner without any errors that could have
an impact on the trial's verdict. This is an important part of reaching a safe verdict because it
helps establish the truths and credibility of the arguments in the case, ensuring that justice is
met. On the other hand, an unsafe verdict is one that is unreliable, commonly resulting from
procedural errors, mishandled or weak evidence or major errors within the trial. However,
this is not the same thing as an unjust verdict, which is inherently unfair, an unsafe verdict is
one that cannot be confidently deemed as accurate or reliable. The fundamental aspects of
an unsafe verdict are procedural flaws, unreliable and insufficient evidence. Procedural
flaws undermine the fairness and reliability of the verdict, it refers to the errors in trial
processes, such as the jury receiving erroneous instructions and the misapplication of a law.
Unreliable evidence is evidence that is used in trial but found to be flawed or inaccurate
15 MARKS = 1 HOUR 12 MINS OR 70 MINS
Conclusions: just verdicts, miscarriage, safe verdict, just sentencing
Evaluate: fairness, safety and outcome
Just and Unjust Verdicts
A just verdict is a decision that is reached through impartial judgement, fairly based on the
reliable facts of the case. The key elements of a just verdict are robust evidence, impartial
judgement and the adherence to legal standards. Robust evidence refers to evidence that
is clear, adheres to the full code test and is supportive of the verdict, this means that the
evidence should be of significant strength to support the decision made by the court.
Impartial judgement means that the verdict was reached without bias, based on objective
evidence, this ensures that the verdict is fair. Adherence to legal standards betokens that
the trial follows the laws and legislations of the courtroom. On the other hand, an unjust
verdict is a verdict that is untrue to the evidence or manifestly unjust. This happens when the
verdict is affected by procedural errors, bias or mishandling of evidence, causing the trial to
be unfair. Procedural errors refers to the errors that happen when the court does not follow
established legal proceedings during the trial, an example of a procedural error would be
when jurors are not given proper or inappropriate instructions. Bias is representative of the
preconceived notion that can impact the impartiality of the outcome, for example if the judge
has certain racial or gender bias’. Finally, mishandled evidence is evidence that was poorly
handled either through collection, analysis, evaluation or interpretation that can lead to a
fallacious decision, for example the contamination or tampering of evidence. A case that
showcases an unjust verdict initially, but eventually reaches justice for the victim is the case
of Stephen Lawrence. The first trial reached an unjust conclusion due to the case not being
significantly investigated, this was due to institutional racism among the metropolitan police
which is a form of bias,the police received 26 tip offs about the suspects within the first 48
hours, even though one of the suspects was seen with a bin liner, no arrests were made.
Additionally, the case was mishandled and there was a failure in leadership of the police,
meaning that there was not robust evidence in the trial. However in the second trial, new
compelling, robust and significant evidence for the case was discovered, for example a
small amount of Stephen Lawrence’s blood was found on the collar of one of the suspects
coats, linking him to the murder, additionally the jury decision was made without bias and
rules were explained properly to them. This meant that the standards for a just verdict were
achieved and a fair decision could be made. In conclusion the fair procedure and the new
reliable evidence is what led to Stephen Lawrence finally receiving justice after 19 years,
demonstrating fairness in a high profile case.
Miscarriage of Justice
A miscarriage of justice usually refers to an error in the judicial system that means that the
court could not lead to a just conclusion, especially when the verdict is guilty for someone
who is innocent. Miscarriages of justice not only have the power to impact the individual's
life, being able to damage their mental and physical health and their social relations, but it
can have an impact on society as a whole, like eroding public support in the justice system
and secondary trauma for the family of the victim. A miscarriage of justice usually occurs
, when serious errors occur which lead to wrongful convictions, a few examples of these
errors are: coerced or false confessions, eyewitness misidentifications, ineffective legal
representation or flawed forensic evidence. A coerced or false confession is when a
confession is obtained from the defendant through violent measures or other forms of
duress, a confession must be done from their own free will under no manipulation or
pressure in order for it to be considered valid. Accounting for over 70 percent of wrongful
convictions, eyewitness misidentification is when a witness identifies someone innocent
as a perpetrator. Additionally, ineffective legal representation is when lawyers and other
personnel actions negatively affect their client’s case, this can occur for example when they
argue a defence that is not legally valid, meaning that the defendant may not have proper
legal representation leading to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, flawed forensic evidence is
evidence that is unreliable or presented in a misleading manner. For example, when Roy
Meadow claimed that the chance that both of Sally Clark’s children died from SIDS was 1 in
72 million, which later proved incorrect but resulted in the wrongful charge and miscarriage
of justice towards Sally Clark. A case that displays a miscarriage of justice is the case of the
Birmingham 6. These were 6 men that were wrongly convicted for the murder of 21 peopleIt
is considered a miscarriage of justice because it was revealed a few years later after the trial
that the confessions that were used as evidence in court were coerced. An ex-constable
admitted that violent tactics were used to get confessions out of the men, this meant that the
confessions were under duress which invalidated them. Additionally, the Birmingham 6 may
have faced some prejudice due to two of them working with a member of the IRA and going
to pubs and bars that were known for having IRA members. It was later revealed that this
terrorist attack was committed by a member of the IRA but it is unknown who as an
individual was responsible for the murder of the 21 people. The impact of the overturning of
the outcome caused Superintendent George Reade and two other police officers to be
charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Additionally, the Home
Secretary set up a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1991 in response to the
case.This case shows that not only do miscarriages of justice have an impact on the
individuals but as society as a whole, causing new legislations, laws and campaigns to occur
which affect everyone.
Safe and Unsafe Verdicts
A safe verdict is one that is reached without flaws in the evidence or procedural errors in the
trial, meaning that it is accurate and reliable with a confident outcome. In order to reach a
safe verdict there must be procedural integrity. This is the principle that means that the trial
is conducted without significant errors and that the trial is seen as fair by all parties.
Procedural integrity maintains public confidence in the justice system and ensures that the
trial is treated equitably and fairly. Additionally, there must be reliable evidence. This means
that evidence is presented in a clear and concise manner without any errors that could have
an impact on the trial's verdict. This is an important part of reaching a safe verdict because it
helps establish the truths and credibility of the arguments in the case, ensuring that justice is
met. On the other hand, an unsafe verdict is one that is unreliable, commonly resulting from
procedural errors, mishandled or weak evidence or major errors within the trial. However,
this is not the same thing as an unjust verdict, which is inherently unfair, an unsafe verdict is
one that cannot be confidently deemed as accurate or reliable. The fundamental aspects of
an unsafe verdict are procedural flaws, unreliable and insufficient evidence. Procedural
flaws undermine the fairness and reliability of the verdict, it refers to the errors in trial
processes, such as the jury receiving erroneous instructions and the misapplication of a law.
Unreliable evidence is evidence that is used in trial but found to be flawed or inaccurate
