Questions completed by josh
-
Describe briefly what the CCRC is, what its remit is
and what relationship to the rest of the judiciary does it have? What
role did the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) play in this
case?
The Criminal Cases Review Commission or CCRC is an organisation that has
the ‘statutory responsibility for investigating alleged miscarriages of
justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland’. They were established
by section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The CCRC doesn’t work for
any branch of the court system including the police, prosecution or the
people who’s cases they review they are an independent body so that they
can stay unbiased from every side and are able to investigate alleged
miscarriages of justice impartially. Their role is to investigate a case
if someone has been convicted and lost their appeal of a criminal
offence if they feel they have been wrongly convicted. They can
investigate cases from ‘magistrates’ court, Crown Court, Court Martial
or Service Civilian Court’. The CCRC can get information from any public
body including ‘the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social
services, local councils and the NHS.’ They can do this using their
powers granted from section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to obtain
the information. If they require information from private organisations
or individuals they can use section 18A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
Any of the evidence shared can only be done so if it can do so under the
Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the Data Protection Act 1998. For the CCRC
to be able to have the case heard in an appeal court they must provide
new evidence or a new issue regarding the case as they can not just do a
‘re-run’ of the trial.
Within the Jill Dando case the CCRC began an investigation after Barry
George’s appeal was repelled on the 29th July 2002.
The CCRC then took on the case on the 5th November
2002 before submitting it to the court of appeal on the
19th May 2007 on the grounds that ‘New evidence calls
into question the firearms discharge evidence at trial and the
significance apparently attached to that evidence.’ The evidence was
seen as high significance to the prosecution at the time of the case
when it was of no probative value. They submitted the appeal to consider
the new evidence that had come to light against the evidence of the FDR
evidence that had been used in the previous conviction.
-
The 2007 appeal and others make reference to the “Case Assessment and
Interpretation (CAI)” technique. Explain what the Case Assessment and
Interpretation technique is; consider its usefulness and
applicability.
The Case Assessment and Interpretation technique or CAI technique is a
guide of the framework in which can be used to ‘enhance examination
strategies and inform of the evidential analysis and interpretation to
evidence in relation to any kind of expert evidence received in criminal
proceedings’. (http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-4-WEB.pdf )
the CAI originated within ‘mainstream’ forensic disciplines and was
created in the late 1990’s. It shows a logical and probabilistic
approach in which to address evidence. its main focus is expert evidence
and expert witness testimony in the way the evidence should be carried
out and how it the evidence should be presented within criminal
proceedings. The CAI allows scientists to see how to express data that
comes from evidence as during the 1970’s and 80’s when some cases were
first tried it was later shown that some of the scientific evidence was
flawed as the strength of the evidence was overstated or misinterpreted.
This then led to many convictions being overturned.
This was also shown within the Jill Dando case as the FDR evidence was
only carried out under one hypothesis and not also under the competing
hypothesis. This meant that when the evidence went to court the evidence
was shown as having a high evidential weight when in fact this was low.
Without the CAI showing that the evidence should be carried out in a
certain way under the logical or probabilistic approach then Barry
George may never have been able to have his conviction overturned as the
CAI showed that the evidence hadn’t been analysed correctly.
-
It has been said that “many of the opinions expressed by scientists
at the original trial about the FDR evidence could be classified as
explanations at source level, e.g. ‘…consistent with having come
from the cartridge used in the killing’. What is the “hierarchy of
propositions” (consider sub-source to offence level) as far as
forensic science is concerned and what might be the difficulties in
dealing with activity level propositions as a forensic scientist?
The hierarchy of propositions is the way in which evidence is
considered. The hierarchy starts with sub-source level evidence which
would say if something is present or not present. After sub-source level
evidence there is source evidence which would say that the evidence came
from that thing such as a glass fragment coming from the window or the
glass fragment coming from a different window. After source level
evidence comes activity level evidence which states that the person in
question would have smashed the window or they didn’t smash the window.
Activity level evidence is the level in which a forensic scientist
should aim to achieve when analysing their evidence as they can then say
that it is very likely that the person in question did commit the
offence, but they can’t say for definite leaving the final level for the
jury to decide. After activity level evidence comes offence level which
says that the person is the offender, or the person isn’t the offender.
This job is for the jury to decide not the forensic scientists and they
should never say whether the person is the offender or not.
Within the Jill Dando case the FDR evidence was said to have come from
that bullet as the FDR particle matched that of the FDR particles from
the bullet that killed Jill Dando. Although this is only source level
activity as it is said that the FDR particles came from the particular
bullet but that is it. As well as coming from that particular bullet it
could have also come from any other bullet with the same composition.
This evidence although narrowing it down to the same composition of
bullet doesn’t say that Barry George shot Jill Dando with the gun that
killed her as he had only one FDR particle in his pocket that matched
the FDR found on Jill Dando. He was also known for collecting guns which
could explain the FDR evidence found within his pocket although this was
never considered.
There can be problems when dealing with activity level propositions as a
forensic scientist due to the defence and prosecution fallacy. The
prosecution fallacy can occur when an expert witness expresses the
evidence in a way to make the defendant look guilty of the crime. This
could be an expert witness saying that the knife that killed someone was
the defendants knife so then they committed the crime. The same can
occur if the defence fallacy is committed if an expert witness expresses
that the knife belonged to someone else so someone else committed the
crime and not the defendant which would then make them seem innocent.
-
According to Mr Keeley what was the significance of finding just one
particle of FDR and how did this differ to the opinion offered by Dr
Lloyd?
Mr Keeley believed that the finding of only one FDR particle wasn’t
significant and isn’t unusual to see. Although he also stated that FDR
wouldn’t be found on ‘ordinary members of the public unless they had
been associated with firearms’
(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2722.html&query=(jill)+AND+(dando)
).
Mr Keeley stated that the FDR particle was consistent from coming from
the cartridge used in the killing of Jill Dando.
Dr Lloyd however had said it shouldn’t have been relied on and the fact
that it did was ‘incredible’. He also stated that due to the small size
of the FDR particle it ‘casts doubts on where it came from’
(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2722.html&query=(jill)+AND+(dando)
).
And could have come down to ‘casual contamination’. Dr Lloyd also states
that die to the flawed procedures carried out by the police as the armed
police searched Barry’s house could have led to contamination of the FDR
particle within his jacket pocket. He also says that the contamination
could have occurred before Jill Dando was even killed and that it
shouldn’t have been taken as reliable evidence. he also says that it
shouldn’t have been taken as evidence that Barry George had fired a gun.
When asked to carry out analysis on the probability of the FDR being
contamination Dr Lloyd stated ‘I am not going to attempt a statistical
probability of this happening by reason of innocent contamination. We
submit that it is so unlikely that you can safely ignore the possibility
of innocent contamination.’
(http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/2722.html&query=(jill)+AND+(dando)
).
-
From the various trials and appeals do you consider that the FDR
evidence was presented properly and fairly?
The FDR evidence within the trial was presented improperly as during the
trial the evidence was only considered under one hypothesis that it was
from firing a gun that had the same FDR particles from the casing as the
one used to kill Jill Dando. As it was only presented under one
hypothesis and not the competing hypothesis meant that the statistics
showed that it had a fairly high evidential value as being from the gun
that killed Jill Dando whereas if it was presented properly it would
have been stated that it was just as likely to be from something else
which would have rendered the evidence as having no significance. As
this was the only physical evidence that could have potentially linked
Barry George to killing Jill Dando it was relied on heavily as there
wasn’t much other evidence other than Barry George making false alibis,
lying during an interview and an eyewitness saying they saw someone who
looked like him around the house of Jill Dando hours before the murder.