AC1.

1 - Evaluate the effectiveness of the roles of personnel involved in criminal

investigations.

Crime Scene Investigators -

Crime scene investigators are responsible for collecting and classifying evidence such as
DNA samples, weapons, fingerprints, and clothing. They can also help with photography,
post-mortem examinations, police advice and testifying in court. CSI has expertise in various
fields such as crime scene photography and blood spatter analysis. They also have a
research degree or background. It requires years of training, so they have a high level of
expertise and are more likely to be right. One of the main strengths of CSI is that they can
conclusively prove whether a suspect is guilty or not with the evidence they collect. Because
the evidence can completely exclude them by showing that they were not there, or shift the
blame elsewhere. Evidence recorded at the time may not be useful to CSIs or they may not
have the knowledge of how to examine it, and due to advances in forensic science, more
cases have been solved later when evidence is re-examined. This can be seen in the case
of Sara Wisneski, who was murdered in 2005. The CSIs collected DNA evidence from the
scene, but it was not until 2013 that it could be examined, which linked the murder to
Raymond Samuels. There are many CSIs in England (1300) working 24/7 so they are
helpful for many investigations.

CSIs also have their weaknesses, such as exposure to many stressful and gruesome crime
scenes, which are likely to have a negative effect on their mental health. In addition to
mental damage, they are also exposed to biological hazards, which puts their health at risk.
Their work requires special skills, patience, care and attention to detail. This training takes
time and is expensive. Failure to properly record and collect evidence can result in arrest or
wrongful conviction. In the case of Meredith Kercher, the suspected murder weapon was
improperly contaminated, and the CSIs also contaminated the crime scene by not wearing
proper protective equipment. However, since 2008, the budget expenditure of CSI has
halved from £120 million to approximately £50 million, which may indicate that CSI is not the
most effective form of staff because their expenditure has been cut significantly. However,
there is evidence that CSIs are effective in criminal investigations..

Forensic scientists -

Forensic scientists work in a laboratory and are tasked with applying science to criminal
investigations. They use their resources to analyze and interpret evidence. Forensic
scientists specialize in certain areas such as DNA analysis, fire analysis, toxicology,
computer science, psychology, forensic anthropology, and sometimes dentistry. For Orville
Lynn Majors, the expertise of doctors can be used. Majors worked at an Indiana hospital.
During his tenure, their number of deaths increased from 26 to 101 per year. The hospital
came under suspicion because most of the deaths occurred on his watch. A criminal
investigation was launched and part of the body was exhumed. Six victims have traces of
potassium chloride. In December 1997, Majors was arrested and charged with six counts of
murder after vials and syringes of potassium chloride were found in his home. This expertise
may be essential in complex cases where the criminal also has specialist knowledge or
skills. Furthermore, the development in knowledge and technology means that cold cases
can now be solved and brought to justice. Like in the case of Colette Aram whose murderer
was arrested 25 years later. At the time forensic experts found that the paper towel
contained DNA traces of Colette and her killer, but it failed to match anyone on the police
database. Years later his son was pulled over on a motoring charge and his DNA provided a
close familial match to the genetic material found.

The average salary for forensic science is between £20,000 and £45,000 for senior forensic
scientists. All police forces across England and Wales use their own forensic pathologists to
carry out basic crime scene analysis. Private laboratories also perform other tests that the
police may need. The House of Lords 2019 reported that the budget has been cut by 50%
since 2008. High forensic fees can force the police to submit less evidence for analysis to
save money, meaning that evidence can be overlooked, potentially leading to a conviction.
Another weakness is that they are not readily available even for a 37-hour work week,
Monday through Friday. Although some employers work on call and may work longer hours
for high profile cases. During this time, the rate may deteriorate or take longer to process.
Overcrowding can also be due to insufficient staffing, as forensic experts are expensive and
require a high level of expertise. Furthermore, forensic scientists are not perfect and can
make mistakes. Like contamination of evidence in their investigation. This can be seen in the
case of Adam Scott, who was falsely accused of raping a woman when his saliva sample
was contaminated with the DNA of the real perpetrator because the dishes were not properly
sterilized.

Police officers -

The police are the first people called and their responsibility is to secure the crime scene to
prevent contamination or loss of evidence. They also protect the streets to prevent crime and
interview victims, witnesses and suspects in a timely manner in accordance with the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act (1984). One of the strengths of the police is that they have
specialized units within the police force, such as underwater units, firearms, dog handlers,
mounted police and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which enable them to deal
with all types of crime scenes. . . The CID specializes in serious crimes to ensure they are
dealt with properly. All of these departments receive special training, which means they are
more efficient at handling scenes and preserving evidence so it doesn't get contaminated. In
addition, their 24-hour availability ensures that the police are always available at the scene
of a crime as soon as they are called. This maximizes the evidence available to the police
and allows the police to reach the golden moment when evidence is most available and most
abundant. However, the number of police officers has decreased, with a decrease of 20,000
in recent years.

On the other hand, there are problems with the police, one of which is that they are
expensive. Police funding costs taxpayers £15.2 billion (in 2020). Although, due to recent
budget cuts, there are fewer police officers on the streets and less trained in specialized
areas. The number of police officers has decreased by 19% since 2013, which means there
are fewer units arriving at crime scenes, which also increases their response time. The
availability of police officers can be seen in the Hillsborough disaster when the lack of
officers led to overcrowding problems, showing how police mistakes can cost lives. The
police have also been criticized for a number of reasons, including failing to secure crime
scenes, preserving evidence and failing to investigate crimes such as domestic violence and
hate crimes. As in the case of Shana Grice, a man broke into his ex-girlfriend's house about
six months after she complained about his disturbing behavior to local law enforcement.
Grice repeatedly reported him fined for "wasting time". After Lane assaulted Grice, he
apparently contacted the police five times, none of which led to a thorough investigation. He
cut her throat and set her body on fire. The system has also been heavily criticized for
institutional racism. This can be seen in the case of Stephen Lawerance, who was killed in a
racist stabbing. Despite police arriving while Lawrence was still alive, Brooks claims the
officers did not touch Lawrence or administer any medical aid, such as CPR. Instead of
listening to Brooks tell them where the attackers had fled, they interrogated him, assuming
that the two had gotten into an argument and that he had attacked Lawrence.

Crown prosecution service -

The Crown Prosecution Service is a body of lawyers and barristers who prosecute criminal
cases investigated by the police and other investigative agencies. The CPS was established
in 1986 following the Prosecution of Offenses Act 1985. CPS presents evidence in court to
judges, juries or juries. The creation of ÜKS made it possible to initiate an impartial
prosecution in criminal cases, because the prosecution was carried out by a body separate
from criminal investigators, just as previously the police involved in the investigation were
responsible for the prosecution. factor To qualify for the job, they must be a qualified
barrister or solicitor and have completed professional barrister or solicitor training and a 2-
year training contract or 12-month apprenticeship. Because of their qualifications, they have
a high percentage of convictions. A CPS salary is around £80,000-£100,000 a year,
meaning less can be paid. This is also due to the fact that they are facing funding cuts,
which can affect efficiency, and the caseload and number of cases are decreasing.

The limitations include the right of the CPS to refuse a police request to prosecute someone.
This may be due to insufficient evidence, although this makes them less likely to fail because
they are more certain of the outcome of the case. They are also available 24/7 to advise the
police so they are more likely to get a conviction. However, this saves the courts time and
money because they can dismiss cases. Evidence may not be properly verified or other
errors may occur, as in the case of Damilola Taylor. It took six years and three trials before
brothers Danny and Ricky Preddie were convicted of murder. Detectives made serious
mistakes in their treatment of a prosecution witness, a 12-year-old girl known to the court as
Bromley. And the prosecution was poorly prepared for the trial, with no system in place to
check the quality of Bromley's testimony before the trial. He was later exposed for lying and
the case collapsed.

Pathologists -

Pathologists are doctors who specialize in the causes of disease and death. They perform
postmortem examinations of bodies to determine the cause and time of death. In addition to
testifying in court and advising the police on the recovery of the body to prevent the loss of
important business evidence. A great strength of pathologists is that they are highly trained
and experts in their field. They can use forensics to determine if the person was murdered
and additional evidence to help the investigation. You must have a medical degree or
undergo special training in pathology. We see the effective use of pathology in the case of
Cora Crippen, where the pathologist determined that she was poisoned using a place that
one of the prime suspects had just bought. Thanks to their high level of training and
efficiency, they earn a high salary of £92,929 a year or £41.14 an hour. Overall, pathology
services cost the NHS around £2.5 billion a year, of which they represent the largest single
component of the workforce.

Pathologists help police and coroners around the clock, but only around 35 are registered
with the Home Office, meaning investigations can be delayed and they may need to work on
several cases at once. This can reduce the amount of time each investigation takes,
meaning they may miss a key clue. Although pathologists are rarely wrong, it is not
uncommon, as seen in the case of the Camden Ripper. In which the coroner who worked on
the Camden Ripper case was found to be incompetent and dishonest. According to Dr.
Patel, Ripper`s first victim, Sally White, died of natural causes. However, the GMC hearing
found that Dr Pateland's findings did not take sufficient account of the victim and the place
and location. The GMC investigated the validity of 29 allegations made against Dr Patel at
the hearing, including one of CV marking. It also emerged that he failed to consider a
number of other possible causes of death, including suffocation.

AC1.2 - Assess the usefulness of investigative techniques in criminal investigations.

Intelligence databases -

The police use many databases to store and use information when solving crimes. This
information is stored in a number of different ways. For example, the Police National
Computer or PNC contains extensive information about people, vehicles, crimes and
property. As well as providing access to the biometric databases of the National DNA
Fingerprint Database, it contains information on more than 12 million people and arrests,
convictions and police warnings. as well as information on 48 million people with and without
a driver's license, as well as vehicle registration information. The PNC also contains
information on missing and wanted persons. The National Police Database contains
intelligence on suspected crime and information about the PNC. In addition to 3.5 billion
searchable records, it consists of 220 linked databases. International databases such as
Interpol contain millions of records containing information about individuals such as names
and fingerprints; stolen property such as passports and vehicles; and weapons and threats
such as guns. The Gan Matrix contains information about suspected gang members so it
can help police monitor and combat gang-related violence. However, The Gangs Matrix
received complaints of racial bias. As a result, the Metropolitan Police had to remove more
than 1,000 young black people from their database in 2021. There were also leaks. In 2017,
rival gangs gained access to the identities and addresses of 203 accused gang members
(some suffering serious violence) as a result of the crash. A smart database would be very
useful for use in a police department where you have access to computers and the right
software. There you would have time to go through it and using it in conjunction with other
evidence can produce very useful results. However, its use at the crime scene itself may not
be useful as it may cause problems.

Intelligent databases are an effective tool in the fight against crime. If you have a crime
scene sample with DNA, you can search the database for a prime suspect (about 53% of
cases in England and Wales, 68% in Scotland, helping to solve cases and get convictions).
You can also check if there are matches outside the country from various databases.
Additionally, there were 3.1 million profiles in the UK DNA database in 2005 and 6.6 million
profiles in 2020.

However, intelligence databases are not without flaws. Take accuracy for example; there
was pollution and injustice. This was shown in the case of Adam Scott, who was charged
and arrested when crime scene DNA matched Scottand`s own DNA profile. Another time,
new tests by lab experts on the original crime scene sample didn't match Scott. Pollution
was caused by human error. Another issue is ethics, the European Court of Human Rights
declared in 2008 that storing the DNA of innocent people in a DNA database is unethical
because it violates their right to privacy. But some argue that even innocent people and DNA
should be preserved because it can prevent other people from being murdered. Because
they are more likely to find a match and get together faster.

Forensic techniques -

Forensic techniques help solve crimes by analyzing evidence provided by crime scene
investigators. This evidence can include biological material (such as blood, semen, skin
flakes, and hair) that can be used to separate DNA from other evidence such as fingerprints,
shoe prints, weapons, and fibers. DNA profiling was developed in 1985. Even the smallest
pieces of DNA can be tested and help identify criminals or prove they were there. Each
person's DNA is unique, which means reliability is high even when families share similar
DNA, so if a person's DNA is not in the database, a relative can be found to narrow down the
list of suspects. This can be seen in the case of Collete Aram. When Collete went to her
boyfriend, she was kidnapped, raped and strangled. In 2008, advances in forensic science
allowed police chiefs to create a DNA profile of the killer. Jean-Paul Hutchinson was arrested
on a driving charge and DNA tests were routinely carried out. His DNA almost exactly
matched the profile of Collette and the killer. Paul Hitchinson was arrested and charged with
murder in 2009. Colin Pitchfork was the first person to be convicted solely on DNA evidence.
In 1983 and 1986 he was convicted of the rape and murder of two Leicestershire girls.
Richard Buckland, on the other hand, was already in prison for the charges and became the
first person to be exonerated of a crime due to DNA. It shows the usefulness of DNA and
how old crimes can be re-investigated and how forensic techniques can prove both
innocence and guilt.

In addition to DNA forensics, there is also forensic anthropology, forensic entomology and
computer forensics. Forensic anthropology is the study of human skeletons, the study of
which can help interpret trauma, estimate time of death, and identify remains. Forensic
entomology involves the study of insects and other arthropods. The types of insects found
on bodies can tell a forensic entomologist how long a body has been dead. For example,
flies arrive in minutes, unlike other insects that tend to try other insects that arrived earlier.
Computer forensics involves investigative techniques that can be used to identify and record
evidence from a computer device.

While forensic technology can play an important role in solving criminal cases, proving
innocence or even just suspects, it can have its weaknesses. For example, evidence can
become contaminated if it is not properly collected and stored. This can be seen in the case
of Adam Scott, who was falsely arrested for rape and murder. His DNA sample got mixed up
when the DNA plate was recycled in the lab. Forensic expertise is precious, which means
their time is precious. An example would be DNA testing which used to be really expensive
but is now around £20 cheaper. In addition, a new law was introduced in 2012 that requires
the eventual destruction of DNA evidence taken from most unconvicted people so that their
civil liberties are not violated. This means that there are fewer profiles in the system and if
these people are later involved in a crime, they cannot be identified by the system. It can
also lead to wrongful convictions, as in the case of David Butler. Due to his skin condition, he
shed many of the skin cells that were found on the victim. He was a taxi driver and may have
taken a passenger to meet a murdered prostitute in the red light district. His DNA may have
been transferred from the change he gave to his Passenger.

Surveillance techniques -

The use of CCTV is an important tool in police investigation in today's society. This is often
the first thing an investigating officer asks during a police investigation. CCTV allows the
police to obtain permanent images of a crime. There are cameras on the streets, in business
premises, public buildings, shops and outside people's homes. With cutting-edge
technology, a suspect's movements can be tracked and used to prosecute and prove
innocence. Every person living in the UK is caught on CCTV up to 30 times a day. CCTV
evidence can be particularly useful in street crimes such as robberies, as all active areas of
the city are now covered with cameras. Thefts from business premises are also likely to be
caught on CCTV.

CCTV coverage can be 24 hours and is usually time stamped, which is of great help to
officers as they can see where and when a person of interest was in a given area. If they
have access to CCTV images, they may decide to release them to the media and ask
members of the public to come forward with an identity they know. For example, it can be
used in missing persons cases, such as that of Sarah Everard, where her murder was
solved using two types of CCTV. CCTV helped arrest 4,000 people during the London riots
in 2011. CCTV showed footage of riots and looting in London, police being pelted with
bricks, a moped driver disconnected from his machine as he wandered into rioters in the
street, one of many hooded youths setting fire to a building. through a broken window,
youths would slide down the broken window of a shop to steal what they could lay their
hands on. But it can not only show who committed the crime, but also exonerate suspects
and prove that they did not exist, or provide an alibi, preventing people from being wrongly
convicted.

Although surveillance techniques are very useful in criminal investigations, they have their
weaknesses. Since most of them are fixed cameras, they cannot track objects around the
corner. This is because CCTV can only monitor certain areas and criminals can vandalize
and damage CCTV by sticking chewing gum on it or spraying something on the lens. They
may also cover their faces with masks and hoods to avoid CCTV detection. these all reduce
the effectiveness of CCTV, but other information can also be collected, such as the clothes
they were last seen wearing..
Interview techniques -

Interviewing methods such as eyewitness testimony, where a witness to a crime gives

evidence, and expert, where police officers interview experts and experts for information,
can be useful in investigating a crime. Eyewitness testimony can have many strengths, some
of which can be strong evidence against the accused. This allows the person to return to the
crime scene, allowing them to go back for more information, unlike experts where this is not
allowed. It would be best to interview the witness at the police station, as it helps him out of a
stressful situation and allows him to focus more clearly. We see how emotions can affect a
witness in Johnson and Scott's study, where people exposed to a knife had higher levels of
anxiety and were less likely to focus on the suspect's face than the weapon. However, there
may be certain evidence at a crime scene that can jog the memory of witnesses, allowing
them to remember the incident more accurately. It is not a good idea to leave too much time
before the interview because they may forget some key information or their opinions may be
influenced by what others tell them. Those testimonies must be as accurate as possible
because the Devlin Committee found in 1976 that juries convicted 74% of cases where the
only charge was deputy identification. In the Ronald Cotton case, Cotton was tried,
convicted, and sentenced to life in prison based on the victim's testimony and other legal
evidence. Another Bobby Poole was later sentenced to prison for similar crimes. Moreover,
this man bore a striking resemblance to Cotton, so the prison staff was constantly confused.
Using a semen sample collected by Thompson during the attack, DNA evidence was able to
prove that Cotton was innocent and Poole was the real rapist.

Because of the problems associated with witness testimony, it is important to obtain as much
accurate information as possible from witnesses during police interviews. Cognitive
interviews use as many "cues" as possible to encourage recall. Strategies such as re-
contextualization, reporting back everything that was said, reverse order and shifting
perspective can be used here. Fisher found that this method provided more information than
standard interviews. While this has been shown to lead to more recall, Kohnken has found
that inaccurate details also increase. They are also very time consuming and require special
training.
To conclude, eyewitnesses are stronger witnesses because they may have more specific
information about what happened at the crime scene, while an expert does not. However,
witnesses can be weak in crimes such as robbery or theft because they may not have
evidence to rely on. An eyewitness would be better about this because he might be able to
describe the person. Although neither is particularly perfect, both have some strong
weaknesses in that eyewitnesses may not have seen what they actually saw, they may have
heard someone say something happened when they didn't actually see the crime and were
just passing on false information. Interview techniques are used when describing a robbery
or traffic accident that someone witnessed, or when it is related to a problem about which the
expert may have information that affects the case. Eyewitnesses can be taken anywhere.
Police investigating the case may ask preliminary questions at the crime scene to obtain
preliminary evidence. However, they will probably return to the police station to ask more
questions and get more information.

Profiling
Geographic profiling -

Geographic profiling uses data to make recommendations about a potential criminal. It is

based on data and statistics and although it cannot solve the crime, the recommendations
made can mean that resources can be used as effectively as possible. In particular, it traces
patterns in the location and timing of crimes so that decisions can be made about the
connections between crimes, which can provide ideas about where the criminal lives or
works. It is based on two main principles. The first is the principle of last effort, whereby the
criminal chooses the target closest to home when presented with two identical attractive
targets. Another is the buffer zone principle, whereby offenders do not travel unnecessarily
but avoid committing offences too close to home for fear of detection. This is known as their
buffer zone. Canter and Gregorio use these ideas to identify two distinct patterns of criminal
behaviour. The robber first travels in his home location and takes a different route each time
to avoid returning to the scene of his last crime. As a result, the "circle hypothesis" the
offender and the residence should be located near the centre of the circle formed by the two
most distant crime scenes. A commuter leaves his home to commit a crime somewhere else.
The places where they committed their crimes often converge there. If they congregate near
a station or a main road, they may find a way to reach their victims. Profilers must be sure
that each crime was committed by the same person. This can become difficult if the
offender's offending pattern changes as he commits more crimes. They must also confirm
that they have not overlooked any out-of-district violations. Otherwise, their centre is in the
wrong place. It depends on accurate data, so if the crime scenes are not recorded correctly,
the map will not be accurate. However, if the data is correct, it can help police and other
authorities focus their resources on specific areas to reduce crime. Geographic profiling can
be used in many cases, including violent crimes and property crimes.

Investigative psychology -

Investigative psychology is an approach that grew out of geographical profiling and provides
support in criminal investigations. Mostly associated with David Canter, investigative
psychology is based on the idea that offenders will offend in areas that they know well. The
central theory is the offender consistency principle. This is that offenders behave
consistently in both their criminal and non-criminal activities. As a result, their criminal
behaviour will be a reflection of their character and behaviour in general. For instance, a
rapist may speak to their victim indecently and treat them like an object. Investigative
psychology also makes use of the theory that criminals justify their behaviour using
andquot;criminal narrative motifs,andquot; or incidents from their own lives. The perpetrator
might describe themselves as an ”elated hero” , “depressed victim” or a “distressed
revenger” For instance, the elated hero might consider his crime to be bold and noble.
Investigative psychology does not focus on why the offender commits the crime but instead,
it infers the characteristics of the offender from the known actions taken by them during the
crime. It makes use of extensive databases, specialised algorithms, and offender profiling
studies to predict objective offender characteristics from criminal behaviour. It analyses a
significant amount of data and shares crime scene details. Such studies are unbiased
because they have undergone peer review. The large amount of data used certainly makes
it possible to determine how often certain behaviours occur in certain crimes. However, this
depends on the quality of information about crimes and criminals. It must be accurate for
predictions about behaviour and the criminal to be correct. As with geographic profiling,
reporting and registration numbers must be accurate, which is less likely for crimes such as
rape or domestic violence. Therefore, it is more likely to be used for violent crimes such as
murder, and others such as arson and insurance fraud.

Typological profiling -

The purpose of typological profiling is to classify criminals into different types based on how
they behaved at the crime scene. After that, the police will identify the likely suspects and
narrow down their search. It creates a suspect profile, often using intuition, and tends to
narrow down potential leads. Typological profiling provides more information about the
criminal that cannot be found at the crime scene, which can be very useful, especially when
there is not much physical evidence at the crime scene. The US Federal Bureau of
Investigation created the most prominent typological profiling method in the late 1970s. The
technique, originally based on interviews with 36 convicted serial killers and rapists, was
combined with information from many crimes investigated and solved by the FBI. Crimes are
divided into organised and unorganised categories. Organised crimes are those where the
crime is planned, there are few clues and the victim is a foreigner. Disorganised crimes are
spontaneous, disordered, and have little attempt to hide evidence. From there, a profile is
created that includes suggestions about the offender's age, gender, professional
background, IQ, and social and family relationships. This profile is used by the police when
investigating a crime. Many countries adopted this method of investigation because it was
very effective in identifying suspects. This can help minimise the number of suspects. For
example, the Yorkshire Ripper investigation yielded 268,000 identified suspects, but profiling
reduced that number, saving time and money. However, since many of the traits have been
identified through interviews with serial killers, it is likely that they are not the most
trustworthy or honest people. it also only includes a small sample and does not include those
not captured. Furthermore, criminals can have both organised and unorganised criminal
characteristics and can even switch between the two categories. Finally, profiles are
unscientific and can often be inaccurate and apply to many people, something called the
Barnum effect. Criminal profiling is particularly useful in situations involving rape, murder,
arson, robbery and related bombings. The use of typological profiling can also be seen in the
case of Ted Bundy. where In 1978, two FBI experts used his profile to place him in the 10
most wanted list. Using that assessment of his methods, psychological makeup, and known
movements, the Bureau determined his choice of victims and pattern of killing. Bundy
preferred places that would attract the young, beautiful women he was targeting, e.g.
Discotheques and campuses. Because the FBI carefully analysed Bundy's killing style and
had a good understanding of his psychological makeup, a public investigation and disclosure
of information about him led to his eventual capture in February 1978.

Clinical profiling -

Clinical profiling uses the knowledge of psychiatry and clinical psychology as an aid in
studies where an offender is likely to suffer from mental illness or other psychological illness.
The goal is to get into the criminal's mind and predict how he will behave. Clinical profiling
can provide researchers with the information and data they need to work. There is a higher
level of protection for victims because law enforcement can alert a group of people to
prevent their victimisation if they know that population is being targeted by an unknown
criminal. In addition, it has proven effective in violent crimes, including murder, rape, and
robbery. But it received a lot of criticism. First, accuracy is more often than not accurate,
which can misdirect a case, waste police time, and leave the criminal free to commit more
crimes. It can also lead to unfounded assumptions about the characteristics and motives of
the perpetrator. This can derail an investigation and lead to the arrest or even conviction of
an innocent person, while the perpetrator may commit other crimes, as Rachel Nickell's case
study shows. Same with Washington Sniper, where many wrong assumptions were made.
For example, the profile said it was probably a white male and either a gun or a construction
worker, when in fact it was two black unemployed veterans.

AC1.3 - Explain how evidence is processed.

Evidence is the basis for charging a suspect, there are two types of evidence: physical
evidence and evidence. Physical evidence is actual physical material such as DNA, hair,
fingerprints, or weapons. Evidence includes written or oral statements from victims,
witnesses, experts and defendants. Forensics and scientists always work according to
Locard's exchange principle. According to the principle "every contact leaves a trace", not
only does the criminal leave physical evidence at the scene, but the evidence from the scene
remains with the criminal. For example, when an offender scratches a victim, their DNA
remains in the victim's wound and the victim's DNA remains under the fingernail.

Physical evidence is a key part of prosecutions and trials. Changing locks can be a problem
in criminal cases, as seen in the case of Barry George, where ten thousand rounds of
ammunition were found in his jacket pocket. This led to George being wrongfully imprisoned
for murder. The gunshot residue reportedly came from police guns that were taken to his
apartment during the search that led to the hearing.

Body fluids such as blood and tissues such as skin flakes and hair are important pieces of
identification. The isolated DNA can be compared with the suspect's control samples.
Hoping to get them to the crime scene. To prevent contamination of evidence on the way to
the forensic laboratory, the CSI transporting and collecting it must wear protective clothing.
This ensures that it is not contaminated and that those collecting the evidence are not
exposed to hazardous materials. In the Amanda Knox case, the evidence was tampered
with. Investigating SOCOs were not wearing the correct protective equipment. The evidence
was deemed unreliable when presented to the court. Body fluids such as semen and blood
should be allowed to air dry and carefully packed and placed in a paper bag. Which is then
sealed and placed in a polythene bag which is resealed and rebranded. Each product must
be packed separately. Products containing dried blood should be carefully packaged and
sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis as soon as possible and within 24 hours. Blood
spatter can provide a scenario of how the crime took place. If skin patches or Hows are
found, DNA can be traced to them, hopefully leading to an arrest. The hair found should be
wrapped in paper and placed in a closed paper bag and sent to a forensic expert.

Everyone has their own fingerprints. They can leave marks on surfaces or surfaces. Once
analysed, they can be traced back to various criminal databases, hopefully leading to a
criminal who has committed a crime in the past. If not, no trace will be left. Fingerprints can
be of three types, latent, patent and plastic fingerprints. Latent marks are invisible marks left
on the surface. Magnesium powder can be brushed onto the print or visible with UV light.
After the photo is taken, it can be lifted with tape and placed on the acetate sheet. Patent
marks are visible and can be found in substances such as ink, blood, dust, etc. They should
be photographed for analysis. Plastic prints are 3D shapes made by pressing your fingers
onto a soft material such as a window frame. Once the fingerprints are collected, they can be
compared to those stored in the police IDENT1 database to see if they match. The police
also have real-time scanners linked to a database and portable flashlights that can scan
suspects' prints and get a result within minutes.

impression evidence is collected when the suspect presses against the surface. They can
also be created, for example, by biting or leaving, for example, shoe or tire tracks. Bite
marks on victims are often the result of sexual assault. They often contain traces of the
suspect's saliva, which should be immediately examined by a police surgeon, who will take a
swab for DNA analysis and photograph the traces. Dentists could leave a bite mark so they
could compare the suspects' teeth, finding a match if there was one. Footprints are another
type of impression evidence. If traces are left in blood, soil, etc., this can lead to the size and
type of shoes the suspect was wearing during the crime being found in the cast. The police
have a nationwide collection of shoes that can identify if they match those of a known
criminal. Prints found outside must be protected until they can be properly examined. Tire
tracks can remain on the road and in the ground, etc. which can be analysed by being able
to track the types of cars using tires and tread. As the suspects become narrower, the tires
also develop their own characteristics over time, which can be compared to other suspects.

testimonial evidence is a type of evidence is given orally or in writing by victims and even
criminals and can be from either the prosecution or the defence. All evidence must be
agreed to by both parties to be presented to the court. Court witnesses have evidence from
the witness box where the opposing side can cross-examine them. Vulnerable or frightened
witnesses may be allowed to testify in court via video link, video recording or behind a
screen. Injured witnesses are under the age of 18, people with mental health problems or
disabilities, and for example close relatives of the victim. This can be seen in the case of
John Venables and Robert Thompson where they were ruled too young to stand trial and
presented their case via video link to defend them. Another type of evidence is expert
testimony. This includes pathologists or weapons experts. They can be very impressive. In
the case of Sally Clark, expert testimony was used. In 1999, Sally Clark was sentenced to
two life sentences for the murders of her two children. Professor Sir Roy Meadow, an expert
at the trial, told the jury that in wealthy families, cot death is two children and one in 73.
Experts now believe the risk may be between one in 100 and one in 8,500. In 2002, the
Criminal Review Board, which investigates possible legal errors, sent the case back to the
Court of Appeal.

Not all evidence can be given in court, some evidence may not be admissible and will not be
considered when considering the sentence. This includes hearsay, coerced confession and
imprisonment. Hearsay includes hearsay that a witness may spread to convince the jury of
what they wish rather than what they actually saw. This can happen through the media. A
coerced confession is a confession given when the accused was threatened or evidence
was used to obtain a false confession out of fear. Entrapment is when the police trick the
accused into confessing so that the prosecutor can file charges. This can be seen in the
Colin Stagg case, where the police set up their own "honey" to try to frame Stagg himself.
Police officers collect evidence from witnesses at a crime scene by making notes in a black
book. They will probably then be asked to attend a formal interview at the police station.
Children give their statements to specially trained officers. The notes in the black books at
the scene are then transcribed into written statements. If it is an oral interview, the audio
recorder will transcribe it and transfer it and store it digitally in the crime database. The CPS
will then analyse all the evidence as part of its charging decision. In addition, the police will
analyse it to focus the investigation. Courts also examine evidence.

AC1.4 - Examine the rights of individuals in criminal investigations.

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) contains the main powers
that officers use on a day-to-day basis. This allows police officers to stop and search a
person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited items. When dealing with suspects, the police must
be careful and ensure that the suspects know their rights. For example, if the police have the
right to stop you and ask your account to know what you have been doing, and they have
the right to know what you have in your possession, especially if they suspect you are
handling illegal substances or firearms, the suspect still has the right to know your police
identification number. If the circumstances escalate to an arrest, the police must tell you why
you are being arrested and why the arrest is necessary. There are rules in the police station
that the police must follow to keep the procedure ethical when a suspect is handed over to a
guard officer at the station who explains his rights during the process. If you're under arrest,
you can tell someone they're under arrest, but you don't have to tell them the police can do
that. The police can detain you for 24 hours while questioning, but this can vary depending
on the seriousness of the crime. For example, you can be detained for 36 hours in murder
cases, which can be extended to 96 hours, and in extreme cases, such as terrorism, up to
14 days. Once the investigation is complete, the police must provide you with a C12 report. If
you are convicted of a crime, you have the right to appeal for two reasons. First, the type of
court, and second, whether you are appealing a conviction or a sentence. You can appeal
your sentence in court. At Crown Court you do not have an automatic right of appeal and it is
up to the judge.

The Victims Act applies to all criminal justice agencies. This code was established by the
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and came into force in 2006. It sets out
what each agency must do for victims and how long they must do it. The police must give
you, as the victim, written confirmation of filing a crime report and provide the crime number
with it. During the preliminary investigation, the police must inform the victim of the charges
brought against the perpetrator and inform the victim that if the case is closed for security
reasons, other security measures may include preserving the identity of the victim. For
example, in the case of Ched Evans, the identity of his rape victim was leaked when he
wanted to hide it from the public. In connection with the court hearing, the police must inform
the victim where and when the court hearing will take place. When you testify in a case, you
will be assigned witness support to support you before and after the case. If and when the
defendant is sentenced, the victim has the right to read a victim impact statement, which can
affect the offender's sentence. The victim does not have the right to appeal, but in case of a
light sentence, he can ask the prosecutor to investigate the case. Some cases require
additional support for victims, especially if the victim is under 18, has a history of poor mental
health, or if the victim knew someone involved in the case and was deceased, including in
serious cases such as homicide victims. or rape. They also get help from communication
experts for witnesses who have difficulty understanding questions during police interviews or
in court.

The Witness Character sets out standards of care for the witnesses. Although these rights
are not legally binding, they simply define the level of service that witnesses should expect.
As a witness, you are also entitled to claim compensation for lost wages due to travel costs
and court costs. After witnessing a crime, the witness is assigned a point of contact during
the process who keeps the witness informed of the progress of the case. Witnesses can be
either eyewitnesses to the crime or personal witnesses for both sides in court. Many
witnesses are actually victims of crime. There are two types of witnesses: vulnerable and
fearful. Injured witnesses are usually child witnesses. To make the child feel more
comfortable and less anxious, judges and lawyers may remove their wigs to make the
experience less scary. People with poor mental health get more support as they can be put
behind a screen or give evidence via video link or pre-recorded video to make the witness
feel safer. The witness is assured that the court is secure and that the prosecutor and
defence attorney are waiting in separate areas.

AC2.1 - Explain the requirements of the Crown Prosecution Service for the
prosecution of suspects.

The main prosecutor in England and Wales is the Crown Prosecution Service, also known
as the CPS. It was established in 1986 under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The role
of the prosecutor was transferred from the police due to bias in the investigation and
prosecution of cases. The CPS will also advise the police during the investigation about lines
of inquiry and what evidence they may need to build a case.

CPS must first pass a full code test before a charge can be filed. This occurs after the police
have exhausted all reasonable lines of inquiry and consists of two distinct stages. The first is
the evidentiary test, where prosecutors must make sure there is enough evidence to make a
realistic decision before charging them. Prosecutors must decide that the evidence is
admissible, reliable and credible, and if found not to be, the prosecution must not proceed.
This means that they must ensure that judges, juries and judges have enough reasonable
evidence to find a suspect guilty or not guilty. If the case does not pass this evidentiary test,
the case may not be brought to court. Insufficient evidence can also fail a test for
admissibility. Colin Stagg was arrested for the murder of Rachell Nickell and became the
target of a police undercover honey trap operation. The evidence collected was later
declared inadmissible in court because it was collected by illegal means. They must also
decide whether the evidence is reliable. For example, if the witnesses are truthful and of
good character. However, the CPS failed in the case of Damilola Taylor, where a witness
was poorly prepared for court and was later exposed for lying and the case collapsed. The
second part of the test is the public interest test, where there is enough evidence to make a
realistic decision. They must consider seven questions, although not all of them may be
relevant in all cases. The first question is how serious is the crime? This can affect the
likelihood of prosecution, for example if the crime is more serious. Another issue is what
harm did the victim suffer? The more vulnerable the victim, the more likely a charge will be
needed, for example if the suspect targeted or exploited the victim. In these cases, the
prosecutor must consider the effect of the crime on them. Apart from the impact on the
offending community. While it is a matter the CPS is investigating in the case of Christopher
Kapessa, the family of the 14-year-old boy have accused the CPS and South Wales Police
of institutional racism for failing to hold the suspect accountable for his death. In any case,
the tests and public interests must be met to prosecute.

The threshold test can be applied to cases that have not met all the requirements of full code
testing. To charge a suspect, five conditions must be met, there must be reason to believe
that the suspect actually committed the crime, and there must be reason to believe that more
evidence can be obtained that will lead to a realistic conviction. The offence must be serious
enough for the suspect to be prosecuted without delay and there must be a compelling
reason to challenge bail on the grounds that it may influence the witness and cause
confusion, and ultimately prosecution is in the public interest. suspect, if these requirements
are not met, it is unlikely that the offender will be charged. The decision based on the
threshold test must be reviewed and the prosecutor must obtain additional evidence from the
police. As for Liam Allan, the prosecution and the case were largely based on the
complainant and#039; After his arrest, it took two years before he was tried in court.
Prosecutors were asked to release all text and social media messages before the trial, but
failed to do so. As soon as the material was seen, the case was immediately closed. If the
system was working properly, the expert should have turned these reports over to the CPS
before the decision to charge was made.

AC2.2 - Describe trial processes. -

There are three types of crimes in the criminal system and they determine where they can
be tried. The first are summary offences; these are minor offences, such as motor vehicle
offences and assault, and are dealt with in the magistrate's court. These crimes can be
punished with 3-6 months in prison. Triable either way offences can be heard in either the
Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, although the first hearing will be in the Magistrates'
Court. Examples of these crimes include murder, rape, robbery and GBH. Indictable
offences are the most serious and include offences such as theft, fraud and assault causing
actual bodily harm. Cases can be heard in either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court.

All decisions made by the magistrate court before the trial are called preliminary
proceedings. It usually deals with questions of law, such as whether certain evidence is
admissible. Before the trial begins, the defendant is read the indictment and asked to plead
guilty or not guilty. If the defendant pleads guilty, judges will hear evidence, immediately
issue a verdict, or adjourn the case for a hearing before sentencing at a later date. On the
other hand, if judges plead guilty, they must make decisions about notices, legal aid and bail
before the trial. The defendant may be offered a plea bargain, in which the prosecutor and
the defendant enter into an agreement in which the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for
a plea. There are three main types: settlement negotiations, settlement negotiations, and
judgement negotiations. During negotiations, the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge
and therefore receives a lighter sentence. In the plea bargain, the defendant pleads guilty to
one charge in exchange for the others being dismissed. In a plea bargain, the defendant
pleads guilty to the original charge in exchange for a lighter sentence..

Before the trial, it is possible to release the accused on bail, which means that he can be
temporarily released until the trial. The custodian may refuse bail if the name and address of
the accused cannot be ascertained. There are two types of guarantees, the first of which is
unconditional. In this case, the court will not set other conditions, except participation in the
process if necessary. The second is conditional bail, where the court sets conditions that the
accused must agree to before being released, such as a curfew or no contact with a certain
person. A judge can grant bail under the Bail Act 1976, but he can also send someone back
if the court refuses bail or the accused breaches the conditions. The court can refuse bail if
the defendant has previously refused bail, is likely to commit a crime while on bail, or is
accused of a serious crime.

There are two types of criminal courts in England and Wales. The first of these are the
courts of first instance, where the case is initially heard, these can be either the magistrate's
court or the crown court. Then there are the Courts of Appeal, where appeals are heard,
they can be either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. After the pre-trial stage, if the
accused pleads not guilty, the judges set a date for the accused to appear in pre-trial court
or, in the case of charges, send the case to the Supreme Court. . More than 95% of all
criminal cases are heard in the magistrate's court. This is because they deal with less
serious crimes. The Magistrate's Court has three judges, called People's Judges. They are
members of the community who do not have legal capacity. However, they are assisted by a
court officer with legal qualifications. The sector advises judges on legal matters. It is up to
the judges to decide whether the accused is guilty or not. On conviction, magistrates have
the power to impose a fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months in prison. If you are convicted
of a crime in a magistrates' court, you have the right to appeal against your conviction or
sentence. If you appeal within 21 days of a judgement, your appeal will be heard as a retrial
by a judge and two judges at the Crown Court. The court can then decide to either confirm or
reject the sentence, or reduce or harden the sentence. If the appeal is successful, it may
mean you are entitled to compensation. However, if you lose, you may have to pay the
costs.

If the accused pleads not guilty, their case is heard by a jury at the Crown Court. It is a
commission of 12 citizens whose job it is to hear all the evidence and make a decision
whether they think the accused is guilty or not. They would have to reach a unanimous
decision, although the judge may decide to allow a 10-2 majority. The role of the judge in the
Supreme Court is to ensure that the trial is fair, that it does not conflict with the human rights
of the accused, to advise the jury on legal issues, to judge if the accused is found guilty and
if there is any. risk of perjury. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a judge who has been
bribed or intimidated to hear a case without a jury. If you have been convicted of a crime in
the District Court, the appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal. Unlike a magistrates'
court, defendants do not have an automatic right to appeal, but the judge must decide
whether or not this is allowed. However, you can appeal the judgement and sentence. If your
appeal is accepted, it will be heard by 3 judges, not a jury. If the prosecutor decides to
appeal, this can only happen if the prosecutor believes; was overturned due to a legal error,
the acquittal was due to jury tampering, the sentence was unreasonably lenient, and there is
new and compelling evidence (this only applies to very serious cases). The Court of Appeals
does not have jurisdiction to re-examine the case, but it can order a re-examination, change
the sentence or reduce the sentence. The remaining appeals from the Court of Appeal are
submitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was established in 2009 and is the
highest court in the UK legal system. All decisions made here are binding on all other courts.
Like the Court of Appeal, there is no automatic right of appeal, but it usually deals only with
matters of general importance.

AC2.3 - Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases.

Evidence must be credible to be trusted. This happens when the evidence is reliable, for
example when the court believes the witness and their word and that they are telling the
truth. Evidence must also be genuine and genuine; for example, forged documents are not
considered authentic evidence. If specifics are specific, such as whether or not the rest of
the scientific community supports the evidence, there is another consideration that affects
the credibility of the evidence. Evidence and its admissibility can be a problem if it was
collected unethically or illegally. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, he
can be found guilty by a jury if the accused refuses to cooperate with police or testify in
court. Unlike improperly collected evidence that occurs when police try to get a person to
commit or confess to a crime, also known as a honey trap, an example would be Colin
Stagg, who was wrongfully convicted of murder. Illegally obtained evidence is considered if
the information was obtained by violating the law or by violating personal and human rights.

The defendant must be given access to all the evidence used against him in order for the
trial to be fair. This is a requirement for the defence team to develop a strong case to counter
the evidence against them. The prosecution must notify the accused of the evidence they
intend to use, as well as provide the defence with unused evidence they do not intend to use
in court. This includes any evidence that could harm the prosecution and the case or help
the defence, such as evidence that casts doubt on the case and credibility. Charges can be
dropped if information is not released, and this has become more common in recent years.
For example, Liam Allenand's rape case was dismissed after it was discovered that the
alleged victims harassed him for casual sex. The police examined this evidence but did not
disclose it to the defence. However, the prosecutor is not necessarily obliged to disclose
certain materials to the accused. They can apply for a public interest immunity certificate
from the court, which would release them from the obligation to share public interest, for
example, private information that threatens national security. The prosecution team is
responsible for disclosing most information, but the defence is also required to disclose
certain information, such as facts it intends to rely on and legal arguments it has not yet
used. This is in contrast to prosecutors, who do not have to disclose arguments they have
not yet used.

A statement given outside the courtroom to a witness testifying in court is called hearsay. A
witness may rely on this statement as proof of fact. Sections 114 and 136 of Chapter 2 of the
Criminal Law Act 2003 govern the admissibility of hearsay in criminal proceedings and apply
to all criminal proceedings commenced on or after 4 April 2005. (Criminal Law Act 2003,
section 141). Hearsay refers to evidence used. Since neither the witness nor the judge can
determine whether the witness is telling the truth or lying, this evidence is usually not
admissible. There are a number of exceptions to the rule against hearsay evidence,
including if all parties (judge, defence and prosecution) agree, if the judge decides it is in the
interests of justice, if the common law allows it, for example if the information is made up.
available to the public and if the witness is abroad, dead, unable to testify due to fear or
other physical or mental condition, or missing.
AC2.4 - Assess key influences affecting the outcomes of criminal cases.

evidence -

Evidence has the greatest impact on the outcome of a criminal trial because the jury must
use it to make a decision. To be admissible, evidence must be probative, nonjudgmental,
relevant, accurate, consistent and demonstrable. Not all evidence can be disclosed, which
means that the defence may not have much of a chance to defend itself, which means that
the trial is unfair. Before taking the case to court, the prosecution must be satisfied that there
is enough evidence to proceed with the case and that the outcome will be in favour of the
prosecutor. If the evidence does not warrant a conviction, the CPS will report this to the
police. The prosecutor can present evidence, either physical or evidence, after the case has
gone to court, and they must use it to prove the defendant's guilt. A defence lawyer presents
the prosecution and case arguments by presenting their evidence and cross-examining the
prosecution's witnesses in their testimony. At the end of the trial, the prosecutor must have
convinced the jury or judges that the accused is guilty. in every respect.

Physical evidence such as fingerprints or bloodstains can be very impressive to a jury or jury
because it is difficult to disprove. It is often relied on in court because physical evidence is
considered very reliable because its validity is difficult to question. Unlike evidence, physical
evidence is much harder to lie about. However, it has possible weaknesses as
contamination is possible and can occur at any time during the study. This can be seen in
the case of Adam Scott, the contamination occurred when DNA was extracted from his
saliva sample for further analysis. The plastic tray containing the DNA samples from her
saliva was then reused when the rape victim's samples were also used to extract the DNA.
This can then lead to a miscarriage of justice. Evidence is also sometimes obtained
incorrectly and therefore not admissible in court, as can be seen in the case of Colin Stagg
and the Guildford Four who spent 15 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of the
Guildford pub bombings. They suffered terrible torture and intimidation and were forced to
sign confessions. Testimony, such as that of witnesses or experts, can also have a big
impact, as strong and emotional testimony can sway a jury. However, there are cases where
witnesses lie or make mistakes.

Witnesses -

Witness statements are valuable evidence that can be used by both the prosecution and the
defence. This is called the "examination in leadership andquot; if the party who calls the
witnesses wants to challenge their testimony, which is called "cross examination” if the party
calling the witnesses wishes to do the same. A witness's demeanour or appearance alone
can cause a jury to doubt the reliability of its testimony. Good testimony can sometimes be
enough to sway a jury in favour of a certain party. This may be because they have an
attitude towards the witness or because they are trustworthy and reliable. However, jurors or
judges must give whatever weight they choose to the evidence presented by the witness.
The emotional testimony of the victim is remembered by jurors more than physical evidence,
which may subconsciously influence their decision.
 The risk of stereotyping jurors can impact their ability to trust a witness, such as their race
or gender. Kaufmann et al's research revealed that the emotions displayed by the rape
victim during their testimony were more important than the substance of the evidence in
their verdicts. The opinions of jurors regarding the witnesses' expertise, likeability,
reliability, and confidence were taken into account by Brodsky et al. in their conclusion. The
witness's gender, ethnicity, age, social class, personality, and appearance can affect the
verdict of a case. Criminal cases may be affected by the testimony of witnesses
themselves, which can also impact the outcome. Moreover, the burden of having to
provide testimony as a victim of committing an offense can make it difficult for them to give
accurate accounts. The study carried out by Loftus suggests that memory can be
significantly impacted by high levels of stress.

Experts -

Expert witnesses are witnesses who have special knowledge that the general public does
not have. In complex cases, they usually have very technical evidence that can be decisive
to determine the outcome of the case. The expert is not always right, and the jury's inherent
trust in the words of the expert can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Even if the jury does not
fully understand what the expert is saying, they may still agree with him because they
assume that the expert must be right because of his position. In the case of Sally Clark, for
example, Roy Meadow, an expert at the trial, told the jury that the chance of two children
from wealthy families dying in bed death was one in 73. Experts now believe the risk could
be one in 100 to one in 8500. Due to expert error, he was sentenced to three years in prison.

Barristers and legal teams -

Lawyers and barristers are both qualified lawyers and barristers work in the higher division of
the court and act as advocates for their clients. Lawyers usually refer the case to the
barrister and prepare relevant documents and gather evidence together to prepare for court.
The quality of a lawyer can influence the outcome of a case, as a charismatic lawyer can
influence the decision of a jury. Juries can fall in love with the lawyer's meaning, causing
their verdict to change. This happened in 2001 when five ship police officers requested a
review of the investigation decision. The verdict was that Christopher Alder, a black ex-
soldier, was unlawfully killed in their custody. It was speculated that one of the female
luminaries fell in love with the family lawyer who violated the judgement. In addition,
attractive criminals often receive lighter sentences, Efran said, unless looks are a factor in
their crimes. It follows that an attractive lawyer can attract the jury's attention. Although a
lawyer can also advise the defendant on dress and appearance to support his legal position.

The judiciary -

The impact of judges on a case's outcome is significant due to their role in the court system.
The use of the judge's power can pose a risk of being used unfairly in court. Juries may
exhibit bias towards certain opinions, particularly those of working-class individuals, as they
tend to be from privileged backgrounds and belong mostly to the middle class. Court judges,
who are 71% male, may not give as much weight to cases involving women due to gender
bias. Cases of g, such as rape, demonstrate a lack of empathy towards the female victim.
There are sentencing guidelines to help the judge or judges decide what sentence to impose
in different cases. However, they still have discretion and it affects the result. For example, in
the London riots in 2011, the courts imposed harsher penalties. Judges sentence 37% of
those sentenced to prison instead of 12% in similar cases. This was due to a moral panic,
which also almost tripled the length of the average sentence. Under the Criminal Code 2003,
a judge can sit without a jury. In Twomey, the judge decided to deny the accused the right to
a jury trial because there was a very significant issue with possible empanelment of the jury.
This meant that they were the only ones who decided the outcome of the trial, so they had a
very large influence on the outcome of the case.

Politics -

Politicians can influence criminal justice and the outcome of a case in three different ways.
For example, after the Dunblane massacre, parliament passed the Firearms Act, which
prohibited the handling of pistols, and the Dangerous Dogs Act, which made it illegal to own
certain breeds of dog, such as pit bull terriers. Both laws were passed in 1991. Second, they
can eliminate crimes that already exist. For example, when the Sexual Offenses Act was
amended to decriminalize homosexual behavior among men over the age of 21. Finally, they
have the power to change sentences for certain crimes, as they did in 1965 when they
replaced the death penalty for murder with an automatic life sentence. Public immunity
certificates issued by a minister, which prevent sensitive evidence such as professional
secrecy from being disclosed in court, are another way that can influence the outcome of a
case. Although the evidence is given by the minister, it is ultimately the judge who decides
whether the evidence is kept out of court.

The media -

By law, a suspect in a criminal case must be innocent until proven guilty, but if the media
names the suspect first, whether it's true or not. Therefore the media has a great influence
on the outcome of the case. This is because it gets everywhere and people see
misinformation and end up believing it. Which can lead to the suspect not getting a fair trial.
Therefore, the media has a great influence on the outcome of criminal cases because of the
way it represents the suspects. Newspapers such as The Sun and The Daily Mirror
deliberately chose “creepy” photos by Christopher Jefferies. They then described him as "an
anxious man” and “strange” and those adjectives act as an anchor, making people think he
was guilty when he wasn't. Mr. Jefferies would not have received a fair trial because the
treatment of the judge and jurors could have undermined and misrepresented them.

This shows the power and influence of the media on the outcome of a trial, which can be
seen as too much influence if they have the opportunity to spoil the trial before it happens.
Like when a fair trial was impossible because of comments posted on Facebook against the
defendants in the case of two teenage girls accused of brutally murdering Angela Wrightson
in 2014. Despite the law that says everyone is "innocent until proven guilty." rare media
assume that in known cases.
AC2.5 - Discuss the use of lay people in criminal cases. -

The jury consists of 12 people who are chosen randomly, by computer, from among the
names on the electoral list. Their role is to hear the evidence and arguments presented by
the prosecution and the defence and make a decision. in deciding whether to find the
accused guilty or not, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. The Juries Act
1974 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 state that jurors must be aged between 18 and 75, a
UK citizen and have lived in the UK for five years.

Even if it is against the law, jurors only have the option to judge according to their
conscience if they believe it is in the interest of justice. As a result, defendants have a better
chance of a fair trial than when a judge makes the decision because they are judged by
equals. Because of their extensive legal training and more difficult cases, judges are more
likely to find defendants guilty. As a result, juries allow for a fairer trial because they are free
to act according to their moral convictions and not just according to the law. For example, in
the case of Kay Gilderdale, the jury found Gilderdale not guilty of killing her daughter. He
pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting his daughter's suicide, but the jury found him not guilty
because they sympathized with him and understood his situation. His daughter was
seriously ill and had been for 17 years. Gilderdale just wanted to help end his daughter's
suffering and make her wish come true. Although it is argued that because juries are
capitalised, this results in a high acquittal rate. There is a greater risk that the guilty will not
be convicted simply because the jury sympathises with the accused and understands where
they are coming from. However, statistics show that in 2019 the conviction rate at the Crown
Court was 80%, indicating that this does not appear to be a major problem.

By law, it is a crime for jurors to discuss how they reached their verdict, and they are
protected from outside pressure and influence. This ensures that the defendant receives a
fair trial because it means that the jury makes its decision based only on the evidence and
not on external factors such as public opinion and the media. This secrecy makes the public
more willing to act as judges than if their conversations could be public. But the fact that they
make their decision in secret can also be a liability because it prevents them from defending
their decision. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the jury correctly understood
the relevant facts. For example, in the case of Connor and Rollock, the jury found both
defendants guilty because they could not agree on who actually stabbed the victim. After the
verdict, the jury wrote to the court to explain what happened and that the jury wanted to
make a "quick verdict.andquot; Because it is illegal to reveal what happens in the jury room,
the Court of Appeal dismissed the suit and the appeal. So even if the jury is biassed in its
decision, it is not certain that the case will be appealed because it is illegal for the jury to
reveal what happens in the jury room. In addition to the extensive media coverage of high-
profile cases and how often they make headlines for the general public, juries are often
unknowingly influenced by the media. As a result, jurors may be biassed and decide based
on how the defendant is portrayed in the media. An example of this is the case of R v Taylor.
In this case, a jury found the Taylor sisters guilty of murder, but an appeals court overturned
the conviction due to possible "broad, sensational and inaccurate" press coverage of their
trial.
Judges are public part-time volunteers who also have no legal experience or expertise.
Three judges sit in the Judiciary and are assisted by a legal secretary. The Magistrates court
is the first court to hear criminal cases but mainly deals with summary offences, such as
criminal damage and driving offences. They have to make sentences, decide whether to
grant bail and impose an appropriate punishment. You must be appointed as a judge
between the ages of 18 and 65 and can serve until age 70.

One advantage of hiring criminal judges is that their work is free. Unlike salaried judges,
judges are only reimbursed for certain expenses, such as travel expenses. It is estimated
that replacing referees with professional referees would cost around £100 million a year. The
average judge salary in 2018 was just over £100,000. The fact that the position of judge is
unpaid is an added benefit that shows the commitment of those who volunteer to serve.
They voluntarily want to devote their time to serving as a magistrate, which indicates that
they will be devoted to the case and, hopefully, make the best decision

Magistrates are more representative of society than judges. This means that they can
empathise with the defendants who are being judged, enabling a more impartial trial. Three
magistrates sitting at a bench increases the likelihood that they will be more representative
of the population than a single judge. For instance, in 2018, 55% of magistrates were
female, compared to 51% of the UK population overall. However, only 29% of judges were
female in that same year. In addition, 12 percent of judges and 7 percent of judges were
from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds. The UK total was 14%. although the
judges are not representative in terms of age and social class. They are said to be "middle
class, middle aged and middle minded andquot; because the average age of a judge is 58
and more than 40% of them are retired. With an average age of 58 and a retirement rate of
more than 40 percent, judges are described as "middle-aged, middle-aged and average."
This is because judges must work at least 26 unpaid days a year, so many of them are
administrators and retirees who can afford to meet these requirements. Since most of the
accused come from working class backgrounds and are under the age of 25, this is a
serious problem. judges have no contact with the defendants they sentence and can
therefore do so impartially.

Some have argued that judges should become tougher on cases because they handle
several cases a year. Because they spend 26 days a year in the same courthouse, they
become friends with the CPS prosecutors and police officers who work there. Those factors
can cause judges to be biassed and make decisions that favour the police and prosecutors
rather than what they think is right. Evidence of this can be seen in Bingham Justices. In this
case, the driver was found to be speeding despite conflicting evidence from the driver and
the police. The president announced andquot;My principle in such a scenario has always
been to believe in the police.andquot; Due to the clear bias of the judge, the decision was
overturned on appeal. However, there is growing evidence that judges are effective in
prosecuting the right people and imposing appropriate sentences. This is evident from the
limited number of complaints filed against the cases they handle. For example, in 2018,
judges handled 1.5 million cases, but less than 5,000 cases were appealed. Even when
appeals are filed, they often challenge the conviction rather than the conviction, indicating
that judges are successful in sentencing those accused of minor crimes. Arguing that they
are biassed and less reliable.
AC3.1 - Examine information for validity-

OJ Simpson was accused of murdering his ex-wife Nicola Brown and her boyfriend Ron
Goldman, the validity of this case is questionable in many ways. Evidence used by the
prosecution at trial consisted of the prisoner and vital physical evidence, blood taken from
the glove that Simpson left at the scene, as well as hair and Goldman's shirt found at the
crime scene, the blood matched Simpson's blood type. was found at the scene, Simpson's
hands had fresh wounds the day after the murder, blood was found throughout Simpson's
home, and socks with traces of Brown's blood were found in his home. There was also
evidence in the strange reaction of the Official Journal when they were informed of the
deaths recorded in the speech. The evidence was valid to conclude that Simpson was guilty
because there was enough of it and even if a defence attorney and opinions were present at
the crime scene because police investigators put covers over Brown and It doesn't explain
how her hair ended up on Goldman's shirt. Other evidence supporting the suspicion of
Simpson was also valid because Simpson had a clear history of violence against Nicola
Brown. Since there were no problems with its collection or preservation, the evidence was
reliable for the case. The fact that Simpson was found not guilty of all charges despite the
overwhelming evidence against him shows that the convictions in this case and the trial were
clearly not valid. The judgments were biassed by the recent Rodney King case, who was
brutally beaten by police. The defence used its argument that Simpson was a victim of racial
discrimination in the system and was therefore innocent, which impressed the
overwhelmingly black jury. The judgement and currency are not valid because new
information came to light after the judgments were made that may have affected them; in
fact, a civil jury convicted Simpson after a trial. The conviction is also void because Simpson
did not attempt to establish "actual murder" and because there is no longer any evidence
that the murderer was anyone but himself, proving that the conviction was clearly erroneous.

The Hillsborough disaster occurred on April 15, 1889 at the Sheffield football stadium and
resulted in the death of 96 football fans in a deadly stampede. The crash was caused by a
huge crowd outside the stadium and wrong police decisions to open the stadium gate. The
victims in this case were described as football hooligans on the front page of The Sun, which
also claimed that other spectators stole bodies and acted uncontrollably against the so-
called heroic police officers. The article also stated that Underhand behaviour and
drunkenness were to blame for the deaths, and the police were not to blame. The public
formed ideas about who was to blame based on biassed media portrayals of the victims.
Over time, an investigation revealed that the police made serious mistakes, including
opening the entrance to the stadium when it was already full and trying to detain people
when they had to flee from the crowd. Therefore, the police briefing was incorrect. legal
reports on this case revealed the true causes of the deaths and suggested that similar
deaths should not happen again. The views expressed by Lord Justice Taylor in his
conclusions are correct because they are supported by eyewitness accounts of the events
and their immediate environment. His recommendations for full-capacity football stadiums in
the UK have prevented such accidents from happening again, proving the reports to be
correct.

In 2007, Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffelo Sollecito were suspected and found guilty
of murdering exchange student Meredith Kercher due to faulty evidence. It included a bloody
footprint, a bra and a knife. Sollecitos' supposed footprint was later found to be inaccurately
measured. The bra was improperly stored and later became unusable. Knox was given a
knife, meaning his DNA was undoubtedly transferred to it. Other evidence included the
confession of Amanda that she was in the room at the time of the murder, which she later
claimed was forced out by the police. The evidence presented here was completely
inaccurate and therefore invalid. The trial transcript has good currency because it represents
what was said at trial and was referenced in the subsequent trials of Knox and Sollecito. It
also describes the background behind the activities of Knox and Sollecito. However, trial
records revealed that Knoxand's interpreter translated the lawyer and his remarks, raising
the possibility of an error in either translation or transcription that would have reduced the
overall validity of the third country. In addition, the media formed prejudices and opinions
about Knox after it was revealed that she was spotted kissing Sollecito after the murder.
Prosecutor Mcginni later used this criticism to brand Knox as a sex-crazed devil. This
resulted in wrongful convictions. The behaviour of McGinnis after the trial was heavily
criticised, with the jury arguing that the international media frenzy did not really help in the
search for the substantive truth.

In the 1970s, Peter Sutcliffe, widely known as the Yorkshire Ripper, murdered 13 women
over five years. He was only brought to trial after he confessed to the authorities a few years
later that he was the unidentified Yorkshire Ripper. As a suspect, Sutcliffe was interviewed
by the police as many as nine different times, all of which yielded no results. Sutcliffe
revealed a lot of information during his confession, including the weapons he used to kill the
women. All these weapons were accurate, as each revealed murder weapon matched the
victims' wounds. The revealed circumstances of the murders were recognized as true
despite the time that passed since the murders, the statements of the taxi drivers and the
man who was with Sutcliffe after the murder. Despite his confession, Sutcliffe and his
defence lawyers argued that he was only guilty of manslaughter and that his insanity
prevented him from being prosecuted for murder. The plan was to have Sutcliffe identified as
a paranoid schizophrenic so he could go to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. Proofs
have not stood the test of time because they do not contain as much information as proofs
do today, and because the information they do contain is written in shorthand, the
information is unlikely to be completely accurate, which means proofs in this case. , does not
apply. The public's perception of Sutcliffe and his guilt was shaped by the media and the
controversial portrayal of him in some newspapers as normal and polite, while others
ridiculed his testimony of hallucinations. However, the media reports and his trial were false,
as he was actually diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia a few years later and spent the
rest of his life at Broadmoor Mental Hospital.

Christopher Jefferies was suspected of murdering Joanna Yates for two days before being
released. But that didn't stop the media from aggressively demonising him; Jefferies was
called Peeping Tom and Weird Mr. Jefferies. Despite the fact that there was no evidence to
accuse Jefferies, the media portrayed him in a negative light due to his obvious bias and his
somewhat pretentious and eccentric behaviour. Despite this, the media found Jefferies
guilty. These tabloids made Jefferies live a hard life and hinted that he was a murderer; as a
result, media coverage likely influenced public and police opinion and affected finding the
real perpetrator. Some called the news a media trial. The validity of the media and reports is
low because they were based on imprecise character assessments. The incident was a
factor in the outcome of the Leveson Report and Inquiry, which discussed and criticised the
media and the coverage and role of crime and recommended a new independent agency to
replace the Press Complaints Commission. the state recognizes with new laws. Although
many of the results were praised, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would
not introduce the necessary legislation to create an alternative. The second part of the
inquiry was delayed until 2017, but the Coalition Party and the 2017 manifesto promised to
drop it entirely. This means that the report is invalid and alternative solutions may have been
possible, but we will never know if Part 2 contains more specific recommendations.

AC3.2 - Draw conclusions from information. -

A safe decision was made fairly and properly; For a conviction to be safe, it must be
supported by reliable, reasonable, trustworthy and substantial evidence. In addition, the legal
process must be followed correctly. If it is not possible to determine the guilt or innocence of
the accused with certainty, a dangerous verdict or sentence is given. This can be caused by
a number of things, including perjury by the judge, errors by the judge during the trial,
omission of helpful evidence or hearsay, any misconduct or irregularity by the jury, and
negligence. relevant witnesses. If any of these test errors are discovered, re-examination
may be required. Ghilane Maxwell's attempt to overturn his conviction for alleged juror bias
as unsafe after it emerged the juror had written about being a victim of sexual abuse in an
article has been rejected.

Wrongful convictions are another type of illegal or dangerous conviction where a person
originally convicted is later found not guilty. More often than not, this happens as a result of
new physical evidence or advances in forensic analysis that make it possible to examine
previously considered evidence. In situations where there has been a miscarriage of justice,
the appellate court usually does not order a new trial, but simply dismisses the appellant's
charges.

An example is the case of Timothy Evans, where in 1950 Timothy was wrongly convicted of
murdering his wife and child. Evans was tried for only three days, leading to a guilty verdict
and execution by hanging. A man named John Christie told the court about an argument he
overheard between the couple. Christie convinced Timothy, who had the IQ of a child, to
confess to the murders, as Christie was later revealed to be a serial killer and necrophiliac.
But he was brought to justice only when it was too late and Evans had already been
executed. Police even searched for Christieand#039; through the house and ignored the
femur of the person supporting his gate. Years later, police visited Christie's house after a
new tenant found two bodies hidden behind a wall. Further searches led to the discovery of
6 bodies. This case shows that police negligence can lead to legal errors, as police failed to
consider valuable evidence, such as a human femur found on Christie's property, that could
have prevented Evans from being wrongfully executed.

Another example is the case of Sean Hodgson, who was wrongly convicted and imprisoned
for the murder of Teresa de Campo. Although he was clearly not sane and even claimed to
be a pathological liar after confessing to the murder, Sean remained guilty. Sean was a
serial confessor who falsely confessed to many crimes in the past that completely escaped
the attention of the police. His request for parole was denied. Attorney Julian Young took
Hodgson's case for good and, after discovering that forensic evidence still existed, was able
to convince the government to submit it to the National Crime Laboratory for DNA testing,
which was not available at the time of his trial. DNA tests rule out Hodgson as Teresaan's
killer. Further tests confirmed Hodgson's innocence. Hodgson's conviction was overturned
by the Court of Appeal and he was immediately released without retrial after 29 years of
wrongful imprisonment. The board awarded Hodgson compensation. During Hodgson's
incarceration, Teresa's real killer confessed to the police that he killed her, describing exactly
how, why and when he did it. The police decided to reject this confession. That dangerous
conviction and miscarriage of justice was because, as in the Evans case, the police did not
thoroughly investigate the credibility of the accused and the confession, even though they
had reason to doubt their credibility because Sean was the accused's confessor. The police.
to get another recognition that was more important.

Based on the example of these two cases, it is clear that convictions are common in the
criminal justice system and resulted from the failure of the police to find and present critical
evidence that would have proven the innocence of these two men. Abuse of police power
can also lead to a crime, as seen in the case of the Central Park Five, who were
manipulated to confess to rape they did not commit and each spent up to 11 years in prison.
After the inmate confessed to the crime, they were released and sued in New York for
malicious prosecution, emotional distress and racial discrimination

A just decision is deserved, appropriate and legal. The guilty are declared guilty and the
innocent innocent. Billy Dunlop was accused and found not guilty of the murder of Julie
Hogg. Based on the information available at the time, it was a safe decision. Would he have
been convicted on such weak evidence (dangerous conviction). However, Dunlop later
revealed that he had killed Julie Hogg, making his sentence unfair because it did not fit the
facts. Before 2003, a person previously convicted of a crime could not be tried again, even if
new evidence came to light. This was known as double jeopardy. So, no matter what
happened after Billy Dunlop was acquitted in court of murdering Julie Hogg in 1989, he could
not be tried again. Julie's mother Ann Ming was convinced he killed her and campaigned for
many years to change the double jeopardy law. In 2003, the law was changed and the
double jeopardy law was repealed.

Jury equality, or jury nullification, is when a jury decides that a law is unfair, e.g. the
cannabis laws of the sick, mostly moral crimes. Therefore, although the judge ordered them
to find the accused guilty under the application of the law, they willingly ignore the evidence
to exonerate the accused. Because of this, a jury declared the law invalid. Judges can do
this because the judgement cannot be challenged. This puts pressure on lawmakers to
change the law when juries often do. One example of this is when four female peace
activists were acquitted after causing £1.5m of damage to a Hawk fighter jet being deployed
to Indonesia. The defendants claimed that they were trying to protect the civilian population
of East Timor, which was then illegally occupied by the Indonesian military regime. Another
example of a jury deciding on its own morality is the case of Alan Blythe, who was charged
with growing cannabis for supply, a crime that often carries a prison sentence. He allowed
"due to the circumstances,andquot; explained that he would give it to his wife, multiple
sclerosis. He was afraid that without it he would kill himself because it was the only thing that
made his pain go away. The court instructed the jury to find Blythe guilty and declared that
duress was an invalid excuse. Although the jury found him not guilty of any charge other
than simple possession of cannabis, which resulted in a £100 fine instead of jail time.
Therefore, this case shows that even though the judge followed what the law says, the jury
still found Blythe not guilty on all but one of the charges.

Some punishments may be considered unreasonably lenient, meaning that the punishment
is not severe enough for the crime committed, and some punishments may be considered
unreasonably severe if the punishment imposed is too severe for the crime committed. An
example of an overly lenient sentence is the serial rapist Reynhard Sinaga, who was
sentenced to life imprisonment of at least 30 years for a total of 159 crimes, including 136
rapes against 48 men. The 30-year minimum sentence imposed on you was referred to the
appeals court as “unreasonably” barrister Michael Ellis QC argues that Sina should have
been jailed for life for some of the worst and most violent sex crimes this country has ever
seen. Jeffery Epstein also received an unreasonably light sentence for an enormous number
of sex crimes, only being sentenced to a year in prison because of Epstein's great power
and privilege. An example of an unreasonably lenient sentence is the case of Kenneth
Foster, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death because he was sitting in the
passenger seat of a car when the driver, his friend, got out of the car and shot and killed. him
The punishment of Kenneth was excessively severe due to the partial law of Texas, which
applies to anyone who was close to the murderer if they could have conspired. After a long
campaign to have the death penalty abolished, it was upheld and Kenneth is now serving a
life sentence instead, which can still be argued to be unreasonably harsh. Unreasonably
harsh sentences often result from frivolous laws that make people commit even the smallest
acts.