AC3.1 Examine information for validity
Evidence
Evidence in criminal cases is usually reliable, but there are occasions where it has been
shown and evidence is not valid. An example of this is the case of Sally Clark and the expert
evidence provided by Sir Roy Meadow. For any evidence, whether that be physical or
testimonial, it has to be admissible, reliable and credible. Eyewitness testimony isn’t always
accurate and may lack validity, this could be due to the memory, especially if the incident
occured a long time before trial. This could make information provided less accurate over as
the witness might find it difficult to remember and it can lack currency. Loftus et al found that
where a weapon was involved in a case, ‘weapon focus’ by witnesses meant they did not
form a detailed memory of other aspects, such as good description of the offender which is
much more important. In the case of Ronald Cotton a false eyewitness testimony led to a
miscarriage of justice.
In complex technical cases, experts often compel jurors when deciding the verdict. Expert
witnesses can be forensic scientists or medical specialists for example. As experts know
more about a specific subject than lay people, jurors find experts' opinions more credible and
give it great weight when reaching a verdict. However, relying on experts can result in
miscarriages of justice if the evidence they provide is inaccurate. For instance, expert Sir
Roy Meadow inaccurately told the court in three separate cases inaccurate information that
convicted all three defendants of killing their children when they were in fact innocent.
Evidence provided by experts who are biased can also undermine the validity of the
information. For instance, forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse, involved in a number of
miscarriages of justice involved in defendants wrongfully charged with IRA terrorism
offences. One example of a case he was involved with was the Birmingham six who were
wrongly convicted if bombing two Birmingham pubs in 1974.
The Birmingham Six - Six Irish men had been sent to prison for the 1974 terrorist bombings
in an English and Birmingham pubs. In 1974, two IRA bombs exploded in two pubs, killing
21
people and injuring lots more. The reason for these bombing was because of the ongoing
conflict between the British government and the IRA over the status of Northern Ireland. Six
Irish suspects were arrested and sent to interrogation. The IRA then claimed responsibility
for the bombings and declared that the six were not members.
During the trial, the defendants maintained their innocence and claimed the police had
forced the confessions out of them. The prosecutors denied this and came up with forensic
evidence that showed the Birmingham Six had handled explosives shortly before the arrest.
However, in 1985, the forensic evidence was exposed by scientists as unreliable, therefore,
in 1987, an appeals judge conceded that the same results could be obtained from testing
people who recently touched playing cards or cigarette paper. They were later released
after years in prison. After seven years, a British court of appeals overturned their sentences
after serious doubts about the legitimacy of the police evidence and the treatment of the
suspects during their interrogation. (WRITE ABOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE)-helpful and
reliable when proving innocence.
Evidence
Evidence in criminal cases is usually reliable, but there are occasions where it has been
shown and evidence is not valid. An example of this is the case of Sally Clark and the expert
evidence provided by Sir Roy Meadow. For any evidence, whether that be physical or
testimonial, it has to be admissible, reliable and credible. Eyewitness testimony isn’t always
accurate and may lack validity, this could be due to the memory, especially if the incident
occured a long time before trial. This could make information provided less accurate over as
the witness might find it difficult to remember and it can lack currency. Loftus et al found that
where a weapon was involved in a case, ‘weapon focus’ by witnesses meant they did not
form a detailed memory of other aspects, such as good description of the offender which is
much more important. In the case of Ronald Cotton a false eyewitness testimony led to a
miscarriage of justice.
In complex technical cases, experts often compel jurors when deciding the verdict. Expert
witnesses can be forensic scientists or medical specialists for example. As experts know
more about a specific subject than lay people, jurors find experts' opinions more credible and
give it great weight when reaching a verdict. However, relying on experts can result in
miscarriages of justice if the evidence they provide is inaccurate. For instance, expert Sir
Roy Meadow inaccurately told the court in three separate cases inaccurate information that
convicted all three defendants of killing their children when they were in fact innocent.
Evidence provided by experts who are biased can also undermine the validity of the
information. For instance, forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse, involved in a number of
miscarriages of justice involved in defendants wrongfully charged with IRA terrorism
offences. One example of a case he was involved with was the Birmingham six who were
wrongly convicted if bombing two Birmingham pubs in 1974.
The Birmingham Six - Six Irish men had been sent to prison for the 1974 terrorist bombings
in an English and Birmingham pubs. In 1974, two IRA bombs exploded in two pubs, killing
21
people and injuring lots more. The reason for these bombing was because of the ongoing
conflict between the British government and the IRA over the status of Northern Ireland. Six
Irish suspects were arrested and sent to interrogation. The IRA then claimed responsibility
for the bombings and declared that the six were not members.
During the trial, the defendants maintained their innocence and claimed the police had
forced the confessions out of them. The prosecutors denied this and came up with forensic
evidence that showed the Birmingham Six had handled explosives shortly before the arrest.
However, in 1985, the forensic evidence was exposed by scientists as unreliable, therefore,
in 1987, an appeals judge conceded that the same results could be obtained from testing
people who recently touched playing cards or cigarette paper. They were later released
after years in prison. After seven years, a British court of appeals overturned their sentences
after serious doubts about the legitimacy of the police evidence and the treatment of the
suspects during their interrogation. (WRITE ABOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE)-helpful and
reliable when proving innocence.
