AC3.2 Draw conclusions from information
Just Verdict
The decision from the jury is called a just verdict. Just means to behave in a way that is
morally right and fair. In terms of punishment, it means the deserved treatment that is
appropriate according to the circumstances. Every year in Crown Court, there are around
130,000 criminal cases heard. Most of the verdicts are considered just and in accordance
with the legal rules and the evidence available. Majority of cases, justice has been quick but
in some cases, it has taken years for justice to be served after receiving the initial verdict of
not guilty.
A real life example of a case that was given an unjust verdict was Stephen Lawrence’s case.
Stephen was a black British teenager from South East London. He was killed in a racially
motivated attack. Duwayne, his friend who was with him when the attack happened, was
going through psychological trauma during the trial but did not get any support before, during
or after the trial. He was treated as a suspect. There was a not guilty and unjust verdict
because of a lack of evidence from police failings and unreliable witness statements from
Duwayne as he was suffering from PTSD due to the incident.
The murder suspects were Gary Dobson and David Norris. This is because the double
jeopardy rule was lifted and more evidence was found. The evidence was a blood splatter
and fibre which links Norris and Dobson to the crime scene. They were tried and found guilty
which was a just verdict. The initial verdict was unjust and as the double jeopardy law
changed, it allowed the verdict to become a just verdict through the retrial.
Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight however, did not receive any punishment despite
the evidence proving that they were there and involved in attacking and murdering Stephen.
The retrial and verdict was partially unjust as only 2 out of the 5 attackers were punished.
The conclusion I draw is that although the case resulted in a just verdict for some of the
suspects, it still took several years for the police to collect, identify and arrest the individuals
who were to blame. Also, the court had reached an unjust verdict originally because of the
double jeopardy law that was in place however, after it was lifted they were able to then
reach a just verdict.
Miscarriage of Justice
When a verdict seems unfair or a mistake, it is called a mascarriage of justice. Miscarriage of
justice is mainly used to describe someone who is being punished for a crime they did not
commit. If evidence is obtained unlawfully, if it is fabricated, or if a person was intimidated
into making a false confession or the prosecution fails to disclose the evidence then it is
considered as a miscarriage of justice. In these types of cases the defendant has
experienced an unfair trial and treatment.
An example of this is the Birmingham six. They were Patrick Joseph Hill, William Power,
Hugh Callagham, John Walker, Gerard Hunter and Richard Mcilkenny. They were
responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings and was sentenced to life in prison. On their
Just Verdict
The decision from the jury is called a just verdict. Just means to behave in a way that is
morally right and fair. In terms of punishment, it means the deserved treatment that is
appropriate according to the circumstances. Every year in Crown Court, there are around
130,000 criminal cases heard. Most of the verdicts are considered just and in accordance
with the legal rules and the evidence available. Majority of cases, justice has been quick but
in some cases, it has taken years for justice to be served after receiving the initial verdict of
not guilty.
A real life example of a case that was given an unjust verdict was Stephen Lawrence’s case.
Stephen was a black British teenager from South East London. He was killed in a racially
motivated attack. Duwayne, his friend who was with him when the attack happened, was
going through psychological trauma during the trial but did not get any support before, during
or after the trial. He was treated as a suspect. There was a not guilty and unjust verdict
because of a lack of evidence from police failings and unreliable witness statements from
Duwayne as he was suffering from PTSD due to the incident.
The murder suspects were Gary Dobson and David Norris. This is because the double
jeopardy rule was lifted and more evidence was found. The evidence was a blood splatter
and fibre which links Norris and Dobson to the crime scene. They were tried and found guilty
which was a just verdict. The initial verdict was unjust and as the double jeopardy law
changed, it allowed the verdict to become a just verdict through the retrial.
Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight however, did not receive any punishment despite
the evidence proving that they were there and involved in attacking and murdering Stephen.
The retrial and verdict was partially unjust as only 2 out of the 5 attackers were punished.
The conclusion I draw is that although the case resulted in a just verdict for some of the
suspects, it still took several years for the police to collect, identify and arrest the individuals
who were to blame. Also, the court had reached an unjust verdict originally because of the
double jeopardy law that was in place however, after it was lifted they were able to then
reach a just verdict.
Miscarriage of Justice
When a verdict seems unfair or a mistake, it is called a mascarriage of justice. Miscarriage of
justice is mainly used to describe someone who is being punished for a crime they did not
commit. If evidence is obtained unlawfully, if it is fabricated, or if a person was intimidated
into making a false confession or the prosecution fails to disclose the evidence then it is
considered as a miscarriage of justice. In these types of cases the defendant has
experienced an unfair trial and treatment.
An example of this is the Birmingham six. They were Patrick Joseph Hill, William Power,
Hugh Callagham, John Walker, Gerard Hunter and Richard Mcilkenny. They were
responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings and was sentenced to life in prison. On their
