3.

What is meant by a just verdict:

A just verdict is one that is deserved, lawful and proper. It is a verdict that does justice to the facts of
the case, this is when one is finding the guilty and the individual that is innocent. The criminal justice
system has not always produced verdicts that are just so to speak. This intertwines with the double
jeopardy rule, this is a legal principle that states that a defendant cannot be charged with the same
offence twice if they have already been acquitted for that very offence.

Case study: William Dunlop, he confessed to a prison officer in 1999 that he murdered 22 year old
Julie Hogg 10 years prior, due to this legislation being in place during his confession he could only be
charged with perjury (lying under oath) as he was already found not guilty for her murder.

Double Jeopardy Rule

This rule against double jeopardy is an important part of the Criminal Law of England and Wales that
was established in 2003. Thus, exceptions to the rule were also instilled that an perpetrator cannot
be tried twice for committing the same crime again. Once they have been found not guilty
(acquitted), they cannot be persecuted again even if new compelling evidence is brought to light or if
the perpetrator confessed to committing the crime. Another point regarding double jeopardy rule is
if the perpetrator has stood trial and have been found not guilty, they could not be re tried for the
same offence.

An advantage of double jeopardy rule is it was viewed as a fair system, this is because the suspect
was put through a trial process and the jury found them not guilty. Also, due to the double jeopardy
rule it also conveyed that prosecutors could not file for a conditional bail until they have the
evidential evidence needed to prosecute.

Unsafe verdicts/miscarriages of justice happen when there’s problems with the evidence or
problems with the trial process. Defendants may appeal against the guilt verdict in this situation. A
jury’s verdict of guilty is in question here, but isn’t always formally changed by retrial.

• After Sally Clark’s appeal was successful, other cases involving Sir Roy Meadow as an expert
witness were looked at, especially if they involved the death of children- this is where his misleading
evidence cause unsafe verdicts in other cases like Angela Cannings.

• Miscarriages of justice- cases where the appellant’s innocence is proven, which is often based on
fresh evidence coming to light, such as new forensic techniques obtaining DNA evidence that
wouldn’t have been possible at the time of the trial.

• If the Court of Appeal decides a conviction is a miscarriage of justice, there isn’t normally a need
for a re-trial. The case against the appellant is dismissed as the new evidence proves their innocence.

• Unsafe/wrongful convictions- wrongful convictions can occur when it’s not clear whether the
accused is innocent/guilty. These cases usually have the conviction overturned because of
something being wrong with the trial process. This would’ve led to the accused not getting a fair
trial- which means we can’t be sure beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

• Defects in the trail procedure- judge misdirects the jury, judge makes a mistake in legal rulings
(such as admitting hearsay evidence), failure to call or present the relevant witnesses/evidence, jury
irregularities (tampering, jurors researching the case, etc). These defects don’t always show the
appellant’s innocent, but they cast doubt on the guilty verdict. Here the Court of Appeal will quash
the original conviction and possibly order a re- trial.

Miscarriage of justice case study: The Birmingham Six

• 21st November 1974- 2 Birmingham pubs were bombed, killing 21 people. It’s believed to have
been by the Provisional IRA.

• After this, 6 Irish-born Catholic men living in Birmingham were arrested. In police custody they
were deprived of food/sleep, interrogated for up to 12 hours with no break, threatened & beaten,
subjected to mock execution. 4 men signed confessions. This goes against the rights of suspects, and
extracted invalid, forced confessions.

• 12 May 1985- 6 were charged with murder & conspiracy to cause explosions, the judge deemed
the confessions as admissible evidence (which he shouldn’t have), and the prosecution’s expert
witness, forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse (responsible for this case’s unsafe verdicts and many other
involving his evidence about explosives). said he was 99% sure that 2 men had explosives residue on
their hands, even though the defence’s expert witness Dr Hugh Black disagreed- who was the former
Chief Inspector of Explosives for the Home Office (reputable/reliable/accurate witness). Skuse’s
evidence was unreliable as he use the wrong concentration of solution (too strong/sensitive) in the
tests that look for

traces of nitro-glycerine on hands. The suspects could’ve been handling everyday objects like

soap/playing cards.

• 15 August 1975- all 6 found guilty, each given 21 life sentences.

• Their application for leave to appeal was dismissed in March 1976, they remained in prison.

• World in Action Tv programmes started doubting their conviction in 1985, and in 1986 Chris

Mullin MP’s book set out the case for their innocence and claimed to have met the actual guilty
people. 1988- After the longest ever criminal appeal ever, the Court of Appeal ruled that the
convictions were safe, so they dismissed the appeals. Over the 3 years after, journalists and
campaigners showed new evidence that threw doubt on the safety of the convictions.

• The prosecution didn’t offer a case in the new 1990 appeal due to fresh evidence of police
fabrication, wrongful exclusion of evidence from trial judge and challenges to the confessions and
forensic evidence. The Court of Appeal ruled the convictions both unsafe and unsatisfactory, as the
new evidence casted doubt on Dr Skuse’s evidence, if not destroying it. The 6 were freed 14th March
1991.

• The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad (1974-89)- disbanded after an investigation into
allegations of serious misconduct that resulted in wrongful convictions like the Birmingham 6. 100+
other cases failed/were quashed on appeal. The malpractice by officers included physical abuse of
prisoners, fabricating confessions and planting evidence.

Miscarriage of justice case study: Amanda Knox- see case study booklet Just verdicts:
• This is a verdict that’s deserved, lawful & proper. The verdict does justice to the facts in the case,
so that guilty people are found as such and innocent people aren’t convicted. However, not all
verdicts in the CJS are just.

• Double jeopardy- before the change in 2003, someone acquitted of an offence can’t be prosecuted
for it later. For most cases this was just and fair as it stops the state abusing its power, and stops the
prosecution from trying someone until they get a conviction- which is oppression. In some cases, we
can see how the not guilty verdict was unjust, especially if after the acquittal, the accused admits to
the crime, or new evidence proving their guilt comes to light. Case study- Ann Ming successfully
campaigned for the law change after Billy Dunlop murdered her daughter Julie Hogg was acquitted.

Case study- racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 led to campaigns for double jeopardy law
change. Police’s investigation was racist and incompetent, and didn’t result in the 5 suspects being
prosecuted- 2 were initially charged before they were dropped. His parents brough a private
prosecution against 3 of them, but the judge acquitted them, ruling that the identification evidence
given by Duwayne Brooks was inadmissible, even though he was with Stephen at the murder scene.
The Macpherson report 1999- called for the double jeopardy law to be removed. The new evidence
that got a guilty verdict was Dobson’s jacket having microscopic particles of Lawrence’s blood. The
Criminal Justice Act amended the law in 2003 so second prosecutions could happen if
new/compelling evidence is discovered. Despite this, the head of the CPS (director of public
prosecutions) must agree that reopening the case is in public interest, and only 1 re-trial is allowed.)
The change meant there was a re-trial and conviction of Gary Dobson in 2012. Davis Norris was
convicted even though he wasn’t originally tried. This meant that a just verdict wasn’t finally reached
as only 2 suspects were convicted after 19 years.

• Jury equity & jury nullification- The law can seem unjust, which is why to end up with a just verdict,
a jury will deliberately reject evidence and decide to acquit the defendant who broke the law. This
means they are ignoring the law to bring reach a just/equitable verdict. This is done when juries
think the punishment for breaking that law is inhumane/immoral/unfair. They’re able to do this
because their verdict to acquit is unassailable. Juries who consistently refuse to convict people under
a certain law are sending the message to lawmakers that the law needs changing. Case study- juries
in the 19th century were unwilling to sentence people to death for theft of items worth more than
40 shillings, so they would give not guilty verdicts or in one case, save the defendant from death by
saying they’re guilty of stealing 39 shillings worth of items. Case study- in 1998 Alan Blythe was
charged with cultivating cannabis with intent to supply, but he pleaded not guilty by duress of
circumstance- his wife was terminally ill and cannabis helped relieve the pain and assured him that
she wouldn’t kill herself. Against the advice the judge gave, the jury found him not guilty so that he’d
get a £100 fine instead of a prison sentence. (see as jury equity/nullification bringing a just verdict
for this crime).

• Even though nullification often ensures a just verdict, it can also have the opposite effect. An
example of this is US all-white juries refusing to convict members of the Klu Klux Klan of lynching
black men, despite the compelling evidence showing the defendant’s guilt.

Just sentencing:

• Fair/just sentencing is a crucial part to a fair justice system- those who are found guilty are given
an appropriate and legal sentence. Judges/magistrates sentence an offender based on 2 guidances-
the law (laying down the possible sentences given for a certain offence) and the Sentencing
Guidelines (published by Sentencing Council). This ensures consistency in sentencing across the
country.

Unduly lenient sentences:

• Despite the guidelines, not all sentencing is consistent- Jacqueline Martin found that 11% of cases
heard at Bristol magistrates resulted in custodial sentences, whereas it was 1% in Wales. The public
can refer a case with a particularly low sentence to the Court of Appeal to have it justly sentenced
under the unduly lenient sentence scheme- this is if judicial discretion has led to a guilty person
being given an inappropriate sentence.

• This scheme only applied to serious crimes like murder, rape, child sex crimes, etc. In 2018, 99/140
cases referred to the Court of Appeal had their sentences increased.

• Case study- Stuart Hall, convicted of 14 counts of sexual abuse on girls aged 9-17. His sentence was
unjust- only 15 months in prison for indictable/serious offences. The attorney generals deemed it
unduly lenient and increased it to 30 months, and then an additional 2 years and 6 months for a
conviction of indecent assault.

• Case study- Joshua Gardner got a suspended statement for trying to smah into a car and attack the
driver. This sentence was increased in 2019 to 3.5yrs in a young offenders institution.

Unduly harsh sentences:

• Where the sentences for crimes are disproportionate to the crime- too harsh.

• This was a extremely obvious theme in the sentences courts gave in 2011 due to the

media pressure and moral panic around the London Riots- people wanted to feel safe and the media
wanted a ‘crackdown’ on the ‘thugs’ taking part in the riots.

• Evidence- Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals service advised magistrates to consider custodial
sentences for offences related to riots, even though they wouldn’t normally be punished so harshly.
A mum of 2 with no convictions went to prison for 6 months for accepting looted shorts from a
friend (she was at home asleep in Manchester at the time of the riots), and a Brixton man got the
same punishment for stealing a water case valued £3.50.

• Penal populism- that sentencing has becoming politicised- politicians advocate for tougher
sentences to get voter’s favour. This results in longer sentences. Example- the Crime (Sentences) Act
1997 introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes. This has caused the prison
population to increase dramatically over the last 30 years, even though nowadays crime rates are
falling
References:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/notes/division/2/10