AC 3.1 Examine information for validity
15 MARKS = 1 HOUR 12 MINUTES
- Review validity of a range of sources: Evidence, trial transcripts, media
reports, court judgements, law reports
- Invalidity: bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
- Apply reviewing of validity to assignment brief
In criminal cases, various forms of information can be examined for validity, including
evidence, trial transcripts, media reports, court judgements and law reports. Each of
these sources can provide us with valuable information, however, they must be first
evaluated thoroughly for any signs of invalidity. There are five types of invalidity that can be
discovered in these sources. One of them being bias, bias can be intentional or
unintentional it refers to a preconceived notion that may impact one’s opinion, causing a
distortion of facts. Another one is opinion, this refers to previous experiences that may
shape what someone believes, this may cause someone to have a bias. Opinion can cause
information to be more one sided rather than objective, only focusing on one point of view.
Furthermore, the sources will also be judged by circumstances, circumstances refers to a
fact or condition that is connected with a relevant action or event, in this context, the sources
will be judged on the circumstances of the source being produced, like where why and when
the source will produced, for example was it possibly created to push a political narrative?
The sources will additionally be judged based on currency, how long ago was the source
created and whether the source is up to date with all the current events and information.
Finally, the source will be judged based on accuracy, this refers to the quality of the
information based on being correct, for example,did the source provide accurate factual
information that can be backed up. Bias, opinion and the wrong circumstances can invalidate
the credibility of the information, while the source being up to date and accuracy can
strengthen the credibility of the source.
Evidence
Before a case can proceed with a prosecution, the CPS requires the evidence to pass the
Full Code Test, meaning that the evidence must pass the Full Code Test, in essence, the
evidence must be admissible, reliable and credible. Admissible means that it is accepted and
valid evidence, credible means that evidence is believable in the given context and reliable
refers to the accuracy of the evidence. Both the prosecution and defence will present
evidence in court in attempts to sway the jury, shaping their understanding to favour their
argument. Evidence can be anything ranging from physical evidence, witness testimonies or
documents that are of relevance to the case.
Bias: Eyewitness testimonies come from those who believe that they saw the crime. Juries
are often anticipating to believe the eyewitness, however studies written by qualified
psychologists indicate that an eyewitness’ memory can be highly inaccurate to the details of
the actual event. With eyewitnesses, their recollection of the event and how much the jury
decides to believe them can be dependent on bias and prejudice. A study by Kaufmann et
al, found that jurors tend to judge the quality of a rape victims testimony based on how much
emotion they show, rather than the actual content of the testimony, showing that jurors have
a preconceived notion of how a rape victim should behave and act, leading to bias in
choosing a verdict. Another study is one conducted by Brodsky et al, he discovered that the
, factors that influence the jury into believing the eyewitness testimony is the knowledge,
likeability, trustworthiness, were key factors in determining whether the jurors believed the
witness. Additionally, prejudice from jurors can play a role in jurors believing witnesses, not
just the facts they state, the witnesses’ gender, ethnicity, accent and appearance can all
have an effect on whether the jury believes them.
Opinion: Oftentimes, witnesses can present the court with more of an opinion than facts,
their opinions clouding their judgement. For example, an eyewitness may unintentionally
over exaggerate certain details of a crime because they were in an emotional panic.
Circumstances: When forensic evidence is collected under stressful circumstances it has a
possibility of being less valid. If personnel are overworked and tired, that is more likely to
lead to mistakes and contamination in the processes of collection, analysing and storing the
evidence.
Currency: For evidence to be used in court, it must be recent and relevant, for example all
of the up to date technology should be used to examine it before a conclusion is made. The
validity of the evidence may decline the longer it takes for it to be collected, for example if a
clothing item from a crime scene only gets seized 10 years after the crime, it is likely that it
may have been contaminated and no valuable information can be taken from it.
Accuracy: The validity of expert witness testimonies is dependent on the accuracy
compared to other expert witness testimonies. If there is inconsistency in expert witness
testimonies it can cause confusion among the jury on who to believe. Additionally,
contamination of physical evidence is an example of inaccuracy. To illustrate, Adam Scott
was accused of rape because a container containing his DNA sampled after he was arrested
under suspicion of partaking in a street fight was re-used on the rape victim instead of being
disposed of.
Case Study: The Birmingham six were a group of men who were wrongly jailed for the
murder of 21 people. An ex-constable admitted that violent tactics were used to get
confessions out of the men, the circumstances under which the men were interrogated
under, meant that the confessions were under duress which invalidated them. Additionally,
the accuracy of the forensic evidence also affected the trial, two of the men tested positive
for nitroglycerine which was used in court against them, however, other forensic experts
claimed that the positive test results could have been caused from a range of innocent
products. Furthermore, there might have been some bias against them as they drank at the
wrong pubs and clubs, while two of them worked with someone who was a genuine member
of the IRA. 17 years later, their innocence was finally proven, this case to this day is a
miscarriage of justice.
Trial Transcripts
Trial transcript refers to the complete written record of every word spoken in court, including
judges, legal teams, defendant and witnesses. In modern times, trial transcripts are recorded
using Digital Audio Recording Transcription and Storage System (DARTS), while crown
court hearings are always recorded, magistrates court hearings will never be recorded. This
is an important information source as it can be used by the defendant as evidence for an
appeal or used by the Parole Board when determining whether to grant someone parole.
Due to being highly accurate and unbiased accounts due to DARTS, it is a valid source of
information. However, as with any source of information it may still experience slight
invalidity.
Bias: Legal experts have strategies on how they frame questions against individuals. This
can introduce bias into how information is presented.
15 MARKS = 1 HOUR 12 MINUTES
- Review validity of a range of sources: Evidence, trial transcripts, media
reports, court judgements, law reports
- Invalidity: bias, opinion, circumstances, currency and accuracy
- Apply reviewing of validity to assignment brief
In criminal cases, various forms of information can be examined for validity, including
evidence, trial transcripts, media reports, court judgements and law reports. Each of
these sources can provide us with valuable information, however, they must be first
evaluated thoroughly for any signs of invalidity. There are five types of invalidity that can be
discovered in these sources. One of them being bias, bias can be intentional or
unintentional it refers to a preconceived notion that may impact one’s opinion, causing a
distortion of facts. Another one is opinion, this refers to previous experiences that may
shape what someone believes, this may cause someone to have a bias. Opinion can cause
information to be more one sided rather than objective, only focusing on one point of view.
Furthermore, the sources will also be judged by circumstances, circumstances refers to a
fact or condition that is connected with a relevant action or event, in this context, the sources
will be judged on the circumstances of the source being produced, like where why and when
the source will produced, for example was it possibly created to push a political narrative?
The sources will additionally be judged based on currency, how long ago was the source
created and whether the source is up to date with all the current events and information.
Finally, the source will be judged based on accuracy, this refers to the quality of the
information based on being correct, for example,did the source provide accurate factual
information that can be backed up. Bias, opinion and the wrong circumstances can invalidate
the credibility of the information, while the source being up to date and accuracy can
strengthen the credibility of the source.
Evidence
Before a case can proceed with a prosecution, the CPS requires the evidence to pass the
Full Code Test, meaning that the evidence must pass the Full Code Test, in essence, the
evidence must be admissible, reliable and credible. Admissible means that it is accepted and
valid evidence, credible means that evidence is believable in the given context and reliable
refers to the accuracy of the evidence. Both the prosecution and defence will present
evidence in court in attempts to sway the jury, shaping their understanding to favour their
argument. Evidence can be anything ranging from physical evidence, witness testimonies or
documents that are of relevance to the case.
Bias: Eyewitness testimonies come from those who believe that they saw the crime. Juries
are often anticipating to believe the eyewitness, however studies written by qualified
psychologists indicate that an eyewitness’ memory can be highly inaccurate to the details of
the actual event. With eyewitnesses, their recollection of the event and how much the jury
decides to believe them can be dependent on bias and prejudice. A study by Kaufmann et
al, found that jurors tend to judge the quality of a rape victims testimony based on how much
emotion they show, rather than the actual content of the testimony, showing that jurors have
a preconceived notion of how a rape victim should behave and act, leading to bias in
choosing a verdict. Another study is one conducted by Brodsky et al, he discovered that the
, factors that influence the jury into believing the eyewitness testimony is the knowledge,
likeability, trustworthiness, were key factors in determining whether the jurors believed the
witness. Additionally, prejudice from jurors can play a role in jurors believing witnesses, not
just the facts they state, the witnesses’ gender, ethnicity, accent and appearance can all
have an effect on whether the jury believes them.
Opinion: Oftentimes, witnesses can present the court with more of an opinion than facts,
their opinions clouding their judgement. For example, an eyewitness may unintentionally
over exaggerate certain details of a crime because they were in an emotional panic.
Circumstances: When forensic evidence is collected under stressful circumstances it has a
possibility of being less valid. If personnel are overworked and tired, that is more likely to
lead to mistakes and contamination in the processes of collection, analysing and storing the
evidence.
Currency: For evidence to be used in court, it must be recent and relevant, for example all
of the up to date technology should be used to examine it before a conclusion is made. The
validity of the evidence may decline the longer it takes for it to be collected, for example if a
clothing item from a crime scene only gets seized 10 years after the crime, it is likely that it
may have been contaminated and no valuable information can be taken from it.
Accuracy: The validity of expert witness testimonies is dependent on the accuracy
compared to other expert witness testimonies. If there is inconsistency in expert witness
testimonies it can cause confusion among the jury on who to believe. Additionally,
contamination of physical evidence is an example of inaccuracy. To illustrate, Adam Scott
was accused of rape because a container containing his DNA sampled after he was arrested
under suspicion of partaking in a street fight was re-used on the rape victim instead of being
disposed of.
Case Study: The Birmingham six were a group of men who were wrongly jailed for the
murder of 21 people. An ex-constable admitted that violent tactics were used to get
confessions out of the men, the circumstances under which the men were interrogated
under, meant that the confessions were under duress which invalidated them. Additionally,
the accuracy of the forensic evidence also affected the trial, two of the men tested positive
for nitroglycerine which was used in court against them, however, other forensic experts
claimed that the positive test results could have been caused from a range of innocent
products. Furthermore, there might have been some bias against them as they drank at the
wrong pubs and clubs, while two of them worked with someone who was a genuine member
of the IRA. 17 years later, their innocence was finally proven, this case to this day is a
miscarriage of justice.
Trial Transcripts
Trial transcript refers to the complete written record of every word spoken in court, including
judges, legal teams, defendant and witnesses. In modern times, trial transcripts are recorded
using Digital Audio Recording Transcription and Storage System (DARTS), while crown
court hearings are always recorded, magistrates court hearings will never be recorded. This
is an important information source as it can be used by the defendant as evidence for an
appeal or used by the Parole Board when determining whether to grant someone parole.
Due to being highly accurate and unbiased accounts due to DARTS, it is a valid source of
information. However, as with any source of information it may still experience slight
invalidity.
Bias: Legal experts have strategies on how they frame questions against individuals. This
can introduce bias into how information is presented.
