Personnel in Criminal Investigations

Criminal investigations involve several key players, each with their own strengths and serious limitations. Police officers are your first responders, using the crucial 'golden hour' to secure evidence and protect the public. They're well-trained and available 24/7, but they've faced major issues with discrimination and unethical tactics.

The Stephen Lawrence case perfectly demonstrates police failures - the McPherson report found the investigation was "marred by professional incompetence, institutional racism and failure of leadership." This led to 70 recommendations for change, with 67 implemented within two years.

Scene of Crime Officers (SOCOs) aren't actually police but work alongside them to collect and photograph evidence. They're experts with specialist equipment, but the job comes with risks like contamination and exposure to traumatic scenes. The Amanda Knox case shows how contamination can destroy a case - Meredith Kercher's DNA on the murder weapon was later found to be from contamination, not actual evidence.

Key Point: The 'golden hour' after a crime is absolutely crucial - this is when the most reliable evidence can be secured before contamination occurs.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides whether cases should go to court, handling over 500,000 cases annually across 14 regional offices with 2000+ barristers working around the clock.

Investigative Techniques

Forensic science is incredibly powerful because DNA is unique to every person and found in virtually every cell. It's solved countless cold cases and proved innocence as well as guilt. However, relatives can have very similar DNA, leading to wrong suspects being targeted.

The Colette Aram case shows both the power and pitfalls of forensics. When 16-year-old Colette was murdered, DNA testing eventually led police to Paul Hutchinson - but he hadn't even been born when the crime occurred. Turns out his father was the real killer, highlighting how family DNA can mislead investigations.

Criminal profiling attempts to predict an offender's characteristics based on their crimes. There are two main approaches: bottom-up profiling (used in the UK, created by David Canter) uses geographical patterns and databases, while top-down profiling (FBI method) immediately creates suspect profiles using intuitive techniques.

Profilers categorise crimes as either organised $well-planned by socially adept criminals using weapons$ or disorganised (impulsive acts by socially inept criminals without weapons). This helps narrow down suspect types.

Key Point: While forensics seems foolproof, contamination errors and similar family DNA have led to wrongful convictions - proper procedures are absolutely essential.

However, profiling can be dangerously inaccurate when assumptions about criminals are based solely on crime characteristics, potentially leading to wrongful convictions.

How Evidence Gets Processed

Evidence falls into two categories: physical evidence (bodily fluids, fingerprints, trace materials) and testimonial evidence (witness statements, expert opinions). Locard's principle states that "every contact leaves a trace" - crucial for understanding how physical evidence works.

Physical evidence must be photographed before collection. Bodily fluids need to dry first to prevent contamination, then get carefully packaged and analysed within 24 hours. Fingerprints are revealed using magnesium powder or UV light, while impression evidence like shoe prints can have casts made.

The Barry George case shows how evidence processing can go horribly wrong. He spent 7 years in prison for murdering TV presenter Jill Dando based on gunshot residue in his jacket - but this turned out to be from police firearms used during the search of his flat.

Testimonial evidence includes statements from witnesses, victims and experts that must be admissible in court. Vulnerable witnesses can give evidence via video link, and defendants can't be forced to testify. However, some evidence is inadmissible, including hearsay, forced confessions, and evidence from entrapment operations.

Key Point: The Amanda Knox case demonstrates why proper DNA procedures matter - contamination led to a wrongful conviction that took years to overturn.

The Sally Clark case demonstrates expert testimony gone wrong - Professor Sir Roy Meadow's "1 in 73 million" statistic about infant deaths was grossly inaccurate, leading to her wrongful conviction for murdering her children.

Rights of Individuals

Suspects' rights begin at arrest when police must identify themselves, explain the arrest, state the suspected crime, and clarify that you're not free to leave. In custody, you're entitled to free legal advice, medical help, and the right to inform someone of your whereabouts.

During questioning, you don't have to answer police questions, though silence might have consequences later. Police can hold you for 24 hours normally, extending to 36-96 hours for serious crimes like murder, or 14 days under the Terrorism Act.

The Central Park Five case perfectly illustrates what happens when suspects' rights are violated. Five teenagers were wrongfully convicted after being deprived of food, sleep and drink for 24 hours until they gave coerced confessions. After serving 6-13 years, DNA evidence proved their innocence and they received a $41 million settlement.

If your rights are breached, you can appeal. In Magistrates' Court, you can appeal conviction and sentence. Crown Court appeals are only allowed if convictions are "unsafe" and require permission for points of law.

Key Point: Your right to remain silent is genuine, but remember that "no comment" responses can sometimes be interpreted as suspicious by juries.

Victims' rights are outlined in the 'Code of Practice for Victims of Crime', ensuring minimum standards of treatment. All victims have the right to understand proceedings, access support services, and receive tailored help based on their needs.

CPS Requirements for Prosecution

The Crown Prosecution Service uses the 'Full Code Test' to decide if cases should go to court. This two-stage process ensures fair and effective prosecutions while avoiding weak cases that waste court time.

The 'Evidential Test' asks three crucial questions: Is evidence allowed in court? Is it reliable? Is it credible? All three must be satisfied before prosecution proceeds. Evidence from trustworthy sources that can be believed and trusted will pass this test.

The Damilola Taylor case shows what happens when the Evidential Test fails. The 10-year-old was killed by two young teenagers, but the CPS didn't properly cross-reference evidence - if they had, they'd have discovered the key 14-year-old witness was lying about what she saw.

The 'Public Interest Test' then considers: How serious is the offence? What's the suspect's level of culpability? What harm did the victim suffer? What's the suspect's age and maturity? A parking fine wouldn't pass this test, but murder definitely would.

Key Point: The CPS won't prosecute every case where someone breaks the law - they only pursue cases that pass both evidential and public interest tests.

Culpability measures how blameable someone is. A carefully planned crime shows higher culpability than actions influenced by mental health issues. Age and maturity also matter significantly - a 12-year-old committing the same crime as a 22-year-old would face very different treatment.

Trial Processes

Criminal offences are categorised into three types: summary offences (minor crimes like motoring offences heard in Magistrates' Court), indictable offences (serious crimes like murder heard in Crown Court), and triable either way offences (hybrid crimes like fraud that could go to either court).

Plea bargaining allows defendants to negotiate with prosecutors. Charge bargaining means pleading guilty to lesser charges (like aggravated assault instead of attempted murder). Count bargaining reduces the number of charges faced. Sentence bargaining offers lighter sentences for guilty pleas.

90% of convictions result from guilty pleas, but BAME defendants are less likely to plead guilty because they don't trust the system to treat them fairly. This creates challenges since they don't believe plea bargaining will actually help them.

Bail can be granted at any point after arrest, either conditional (with curfews or programme attendance) or unconditional. The 1976 Bail Act says everyone has the right to bail, but it can be refused if suspects might not appear in court, could commit more offences, or might interfere with witnesses.

Key Point: 95% of criminal trials happen in Magistrates' Court, not the Crown Court you see on TV - most crime is relatively minor.

The Gareth Hughes case shows bail in action. Suspected of murder but with no forensic evidence, he was released on bail. Only when shoes and clothing seized from his house matched evidence was he charged with murder on CPS advice.

Rules About Using Evidence

For evidence to be used in court, it must be reliable, admissible, and relevant. Reliable evidence needs to be credible (believable), authentic (genuine), and accurate (correct in detail).

The Sir Roy Meadow cases perfectly demonstrate unreliable evidence. This expert witness gave "scientific" statistics about infant deaths that were completely inaccurate, leading to wrongful convictions of multiple mothers including Sally Clark and Donna Anthony. His evidence seemed credible due to his status but was factually wrong.

Evidence must be relevant to the case, falling into either 'facts in issue' (matters the court must decide) or 'relevant facts' (facts needed to prove or disprove the main issues). Admissible evidence is what judges allow in court - evidence collected improperly or illegally might still be admitted if it leads to the correct verdict.

The Colin Stagg case shows inadmissible evidence in action. Police used 'Operation Edzell', a honeytrap operation, trying to get him to confess to Rachel Nickell's murder. The judge excluded all evidence, calling police conduct "excessive zeal" and "deceptive conduct of the grossest kind."

Key Point: Even if evidence was obtained illegally, courts might still allow it if they believe it will help reach the correct verdict - this is called 'probative vs prejudicial'.

Pre-trial silence is your right, but saying "no comment" can be interpreted as suspicious. Bad character evidence about previous convictions can sometimes be admitted, while disclosure rules ensure both prosecution and defence know about all relevant evidence before trial.

What Influences Case Outcomes

Witnesses can massively influence jury decisions through their believability and presentation. Kate Moss testifying in the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial seemed particularly credible because she rarely speaks publicly about relationships and had nothing to gain from lying.

Research shows stereotyping affects witness credibility - juries are more likely to believe rape victims who appear visibly upset rather than those who control their emotions. The Innocence Project found that flawed witness testimony contributed to wrongful convictions in 70% of 352 overturned cases.

Legal teams and barristers significantly impact outcomes through their experience, charisma, and costs. Wealthy defendants can afford better lawyers, while less experienced counsel might struggle to influence juries effectively. Juror infatuation with attractive or charismatic lawyers can even affect verdicts.

The Claire Lintott case demonstrates juror infatuation perfectly. This juror became romantically involved with barrister Leslie Thomas during Christopher Alder's inquest, potentially compromising the verdict's integrity through her "intimate and intense" relationship with counsel.

Key Point: The Innocence Project's research shows that witness testimony - often seen as the most reliable evidence - is actually flawed in 70% of wrongful conviction cases.

Expert witnesses hold enormous power because juries trust their specialist knowledge without being able to challenge it. The Donna Anthony case shows this danger - Professor Sir Roy Meadow's inaccurate statistics about infant deaths led to her wrongful imprisonment for murdering her babies, later overturned when his evidence was discredited.

Laypeople in Criminal Cases

Laypeople are ordinary members of the public without legal qualifications who participate in criminal trials as magistrates (volunteers who decide case outcomes in lower courts) or jurors (randomly selected citizens who decide verdicts in serious cases).

Jurors are chosen randomly from the electoral register but can't serve if they're on probation, bail, or have criminal records. Twelve jurors consider evidence for about 10 working days, taking an oath to base decisions purely on court evidence without discussing cases outside.

Jury equity allows jurors to ignore the law and follow their moral judgement instead. In R v Owen, the defendant shot a lorry driver who'd killed his son while driving an unroadworthy vehicle. Despite Owen clearly being guilty of shooting someone, jurors found him not guilty because they felt it was morally justified.

Using laypeople has major strengths: diverse backgrounds, civic duty fulfilment, decisions based purely on evidence presented, and removal of unconscious bias. Random selection aims to ensure fairness and equality in the justice system.

However, weaknesses include media influence $especially in high-profile cases like Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard$, lack of legal knowledge making complex evidence hard to understand, and potential prejudice despite random selection.

Key Point: Jury equity means ordinary people can essentially overrule the law when they believe it would be morally wrong to convict someone, even if they're technically guilty.

Research by Cheryl Thomas found 12% of jurors admitted to researching similar cases online, despite strict rules against this. Jury prejudice remains a major concern since just one biased juror can affect the entire verdict.

Examining Evidence Validity

Before prosecution, the CPS requires evidence to be credible, reliable, and admissible. Credible evidence is believable within context. Reliable evidence is accurate, authentic, and consistent throughout the case. Admissible evidence has the legal right to be included in the official case evidence.

Eye-witness testimonies (EWTs) can be unreliable due to 'weapon focus' - when weapons are involved, witnesses focus on the weapon rather than forming detailed memories of the offender's face. However, EWTs give police leads and can be accurate when collected using proper 'cognitive interview' techniques.

Expert testimonies carry higher status in court since juries consider specialist opinions particularly credible. However, they can cause miscarriages of justice when experts pass opinions off as scientific facts. The Sally Clark case demonstrates this perfectly - Sir Roy Meadow's "one in 73 million" statistic about infant deaths was grossly inaccurate, leading to her wrongful conviction.

Trial transcripts provide exact written records of court proceedings using DARTS (Digital Audio Recording Transcription Storage system). These highly accurate, unbiased accounts can be used for appeals and parole board decisions, though machine malfunctions or mishearing can occur.

Key Point: Expert testimony carries enormous weight with juries, but the Sally Clark case shows how inaccurate "expert" opinions can lead to devastating wrongful convictions.

The Barry George case shows trial transcripts in action. After being convicted of murdering Jill Dando, transcripts from his appeal revealed witness statements about armed police at his arrest scene, explaining the gunshot residue that initially secured his conviction. This helped overturn his conviction in 2008.