Introduction
The incident which led to this case occurred at around 11:30 p.m. at 17 Hill Lane. It involves the deceased Ron Haynes and his stepchildren Sue Crowe, Pam Crowe, Pam Crowe and Mike Crowe. It is alleged that Mike Golding set Ron’s house on fire as a way of revenging the disappointment he got from Sue. Before the incident, Golding aged 31 had been in an intimate relationship with Sue Crow aged 16. However, the relationship was not working and eventually turned sour compelling Sue to pull out.
This paper will design a report that will critically evaluate the evidence given in support of this case, concerning procedures and evidence employed in England and Wales’ criminal justice system. It will also attempt to predict the elements of forensic evidence and procedures in decided cases, which normally lead to unsafe convictions. Lastly, the paper will design a suitable strategy for an arson case.
Evaluation of the Evidence given in support of the Arson Case
Several witnesses gave their evidence in support of this fire case. However, not all the evidence given would be considered reliable, relevant, and admissible, also to have weight as far as this case is concerned. The first key witness, Lucy Golding, mother to the suspect Golding, provides tangible evidence. She says that Mike had been out of the house for a couple of hours when the incident occurred. She proceeds to say that her son had some injuries on one of his eyes, injuries that he did not have before. She also recognizes the clothes retrieved from the bin as Mike’s. Lastly, she admits that his son had an affair with Sue Crowe and that the relationship had some serious itches.
The evidence given by Lucy Golding has a lot of weight in this case. Given that this kind of testimony comes from the mother of the suspect Mike Golding, it is likely to consist of tangible evidence. The mother cannot give such a kind of evidence just to implicate her son. Moreover, her statement shows she had a good relationship with her son and so, the evidence is purely from an honest perspective (Towl, & Crighton, 2010, p. 47).
The second witness, Maxine Crowe, Ron’s partner and mother to the deceased children, narrated how she had terminated her first marriage with her former husband Crowe and how she and her three children ended up in Ron’s house. She also gives details of Sue’s relationship with Golding and how the two of them, Ron and she had struggled to keep Golding away from their daughter. She also describes her work and the night shift issue in the work. Maxine’s evidence is not admissible since none of it can be proved in court. She says that Ron and she had tried to separate Golding from their daughter, this cannot be established. However, some of her statements are relevant to this case. For instance, she admits that her daughter and Golding were in a relationship (Ingram 2012, p. 238).
The next witness, Jane Lewis who happened to be a probation officer of Golding, issues details regarding past cases, which Golding had been caught in. For instance, she says that the suspect had been accused of murder but released after three and a half years under unclear circumstances. According to Jane, Mike was released as a result of a lack of sufficient evidence, a reason that the investigating officers did not agree to. She also provides various Golding’s residential areas after he was released from prison. Jane’s testimony has a lot of weight in this arson case. Since she says that the suspect had at one time been accused of murder, it is more likely that he could have involved himself in this arson case. Arson and murder cases are closely related (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 25).
Sue’s friends, Cath Grange, Scott Jones, Trevor Bailey, Lara Blackstock and Kiera Barnes, provide details concerning the nature of the relationship that existed between Sue and Golding. All the five friends of Sue admit that the relationship was not working well. They say that Golding had become overprotective and abusive in the relationship and had on very many occasions, threatened to kill the entire family if Sue ends the relationship.
Even though the evidence given by Sue’s friend may lack the practicality in it, it helps understand this case. Some of their statements are similar to other witnesses such as Lucy Golding, who mentioned that the relationship between Mike and Sue had reached a deadlock. It was possible that Mike could have set the house on fire, a way of retaliation and vengeance. From the evidence of these girls, it is evident that Mike was not ready to let go of the relationship between them (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 26).
Jane Fox, Sue’s Colleague at the place where she used to work, admits that Golding would send flowers and other gifts to Sue. She terms these presents as unwanted items since Sue used to reject them. She also says that Golding’s mother would follow up to see if Sue had accepted the gifts. The mother also tried to repair the relationship, which had been stumbling. Jane’s statement conforms to Lucy’s and Maxine’s. For that reason, Jane’s evidence would be considered reliable and relevant in this case (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 26).
Fred Ridge, Mike Sherriff, Ian Evans and Tom Evans, residents of 17 Hill Lane, describe having seen Golding late in the night loitering around their residential area on that night of the fire incident. They claim that the way Mike was behaving that night suggested that he had awkward intentions.
They also say that they saw a motorcycle parked in the area. Since Ian Evans, Tom Evans and Fred Ridge can identify Golding’s bike as the one they had seen on the night of the incident, makes their evidence is reliable, relevant and more so, admissible. However, Sherriff’s evidence lacks reliability in it. She says she did not recognize the face of the person she saw loitering around. For that reason, her evidence cannot be considered relevant or reliable and neither is it admissible. Her statement lacks even the slightest evidence that can be related to the case (Ingram 2012, p. 240).
Andrew Cornes, Kenneth Long, Steven Pearce, residents of 17 Hill Lane, described the fire incident and their encounter with a man who they believed had started the fire. Even though their evidence is relevant to this case, it is certainly unreliable since the two of them were unable to identify the person they saw on that night in the identification parade. Only Steve’s evidence can be considered reliable, relevant and admissible following the fact he can identify Mike Golding in the id parade. The identification also adds some weight to this case (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 28).
Shirley Sweet, Georgina Martin and Christine Alder, residents of Heath Lane, say that at around 11:30 p.m. on that fateful night, they heard someone running down Heath Lane towards the main road. Their evidence does not add any weight to this case. Since they can’t identify the person they saw, their statement has very little relevance to this case. Their evidence cannot be relied on since they have failed to relate who they heard running during the night to any suspect of the incident. Their evidence could have carried some weight if they had linked who they heard running to the suspect. It is normal for people to run at night in an attempt to catch up with time (Doak & McGourlay 2009, p. 37).
Kate Love and Sophie Love, the closest neighbors of the deceased, admit knowing the deceased well. They also describe the relationship that existed between Sue and Mike Golding. They confirm other witnesses’ statements that the relationship had several difficulties. Kate describes the incident of the fire without mentioning having seen anyone she suspected of starting it. The statement of these witnesses is relevant as far as the relationship is concerned. The statement is quite relevant to the case since they have mentioned the installed relation between Mike and Sue, which is thought to have been the main factor that could have driven Mike to set the house on fire (Doak & McGourlay 2009, p. 36).
Diane Nicholls, Jean Gould and David Nicholls, immediate neighbors of 17 Hill Lane, admit knowing well the deceased family and having a good inter-neighbor relationship with the family. They also describe the relationship between Sue and Holding as one which had difficulties. Diane, in particular, says that she knew Maxine’s ex-husband well and could not have committed such a terrible incident. The fact that their evidence conforms to the other witnesses’, makes it reliable and relevant in this case. However, Diane’s assertion on Maxine’s ex-husband is unreliable and for that reason, inadmissible. The assertion cannot be proved (Mason 2003, p. 17).
Karen Anderson, Ron’s sister in law, describes the relationship between Sue and Golding as one that had turned sour. She says that she had one time caught Holding shout at Sue prompting her to send him away from the girl’s apartment. Karen also says that the relationship between Ron and Maxine had developed some difficulties and Maxine was planning to quit. Since Karen’s evidence on Sue’s relationship concurs with other witnesses’, it is reliable and relevant in this case. However, her argument on Ron’s relationship with Maxine is unreliable and to a great extent, irrelevant (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 29).
Michael Dean, a friend to Mike Golding, says that when he met Golding in the previous three months, he had confided in him concerning the issue of his relationship with Sue. Golden mentioned to him that he would take it kindly if Sue decided to walk out of the relationship. He also mentioned that Mike told him that he would not let Sue get into any other relationship. Michael’s evidence adds some weight to the case since it shows that the culprit was planning to revenge over the matter (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 25).
Janice Hunt and Lyn Noakes, workers at Spot Service Station, testify that 6 days before the fire incident, a man on a motorbike had purchased a can of Tetra plastic petrol which he filled with5.69 liters of petrol. Their statement was also backed up by CCTV footage that DC Alan Broad had captured. The two station workers were able to identify Golding as the man in their description. This evidence is not only reliable since it concurs with the CCTV footage, but also reliable since it is evident that it was petrol that was used to burn the apartment. The evidence is admissible too (Monas 2007, p. 97).
John Boston, fire officer together with his juniors, assisted in extinguishing the fire. They too confirm finding the four bodies of the deceased at the scene of the incident. They admit that they did not remove the bodies as soon as they had found them for fear of interfering with the evidence. Their evidence, which shows that the deceased was burned alive, adds some weight to the case. The evidence helps in ruling out the chances of a suicidal attempt (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 29).
Kevin Kaene, a senior investigator in the Fire Department, examined the scene and found five litres can of petrol. However, he argues that more than 5 litres of petrol could have been used in the incident. His testimony coincides with that of the station workers. For that reason, Kevin’s evidence is reliable and relevant in this case (Monas 2007, p. 98).
Doctors Tarique Hussain, David Lamb, Philippa Baker and Donald Paskin who examined Golding in custody at different times, reported that he had a few injuries, especially on his face and eyes. This evidence conforms to the one that Lucy, the mother of Golding had given. Therefore, the doctors’ report is reliable, relevant and quite admissible in this case. The evidence adds a lot of weight to the investigation process (Duttelle 2011, p. 46).
Patrick Mathews, Vera Thomson and Edward Pipe, forensic experts, conducted DNA tests on the four bodies. They confirmed that Crowe and Maxine were the biological parents of the three children. They also managed to establish the mother of Ron. The findings of these experts confirmed what other witnesses had said, and so, they are reliable. The findings contribute a lot to the process of identifying the bodies (Jickells & Negrusz 2008, p. 14).
Shane Woolley, John Underhill, Michael Damms and Andrew Worrell, search officers, each conducted an independent search at Lucy’s house. They reported finding a black bin liner from a wheelie bin. The liner wore a strong smell of accelerant. The findings of these search officers added weight to this case since it was believed that the attacker had used petrol to blow up the house. The findings also concur with one another making them reliable (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 29).
Andrew Parkes, Stephen Peters, John Edwards, Roy Hope, and Christine Stiles, forensic scientists, conducted independent examinations at the scene of the fire and on the bin liner of the clothing retrieved from Lucy’s house. These scientists were able to establish that a common fire accelerant had been used to ignite the fire. They also ascertained that the smell of petrol from the bin liner indicated that the wearer had used it a few days before since the smell was still fresh. Since the scientists’ evidence conforms to one another, it is reliable. The evidence is equally relevant since it addresses the issue of the accelerant that might have been used in the fire incident. The evidence is admissible following the fact that the clothes examined are tangible and can be presented in court (Doak & McGourlay 2009, p. 38).
Andrew Lincoln, a senior consultant at Transport Research Lab, undertook a thorough examination of the video provided by the Spot Station Garage. He reports that the motorcycle in the video is either a GSX 750F or a Suzuki GSX 600F. He further reconstructed the Spot Garage using Golding’s bike and compared the new images to the ones captured on CCTV six days before the fateful night. The images matched the ones of Golding’s bike. Lincoln’s findings are quite admissible since they are provable (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 31).
Criticisms of the Procedures and Evidence Used in England and Wales’ Criminal Justice Systems
There are several reasons why the criminal justice system of England and Wales are worth criticizing. First, the two systems have given the police the power to decide whether a suspect is guilty of a crime and if he or she fits to be charged with such a crime. In the investigation process, the police also determine the kind of materials to be used in prosecutions. In some cases, police officers may refuse to use materials such as CCTV footage claiming that, it fails to support their investigation. However, some of these refuted materials may be of importance to one or both parties involved in the case (Terrill 2009, p. 2).
In both England and Wales criminal justice system, individuals who are considered suspects in certain cases, are not allowed to help the police in carrying out the investigation. For that reason, such suspects have the right to remain silent during an interrogation. On the other hand, this may give the defence the freedom to hold back the information that they feel would implicate them. As a result, this has been drawn back to many investigation and prosecution processes (Stelfox 2009, p. 14).
The justice systems do not have a sufficient number of principles to guard the disclosure of evidence in the investigation process. As a result, the power to order the kind of disclosure to be given in a trial process solely lies with a trial judge. In most cases, the judges may only order for disclosure if he or she feels is of importance to the defence. In some cases, this kind of move limits the rights of the defense during the trial process (Hirschel, Wakefield & Sasse 2007, p. 372).
Both England and Wales’ criminal justice systems have failed to exclusively define the roles of the prosecutors. On one hand, prosecutors are required to reveal to the defendant full evidence of innocence. For that reason, prosecutors should remain neutral in the whole process of prosecution as well as trial. However, the same prosecutors are required by the systems to ensure that they do anything possible to ensure that the accused are convicted (Britain Law Commission 2009, p. 28).
Lastly, the two systems appear biased on the side of the defendants while on the other hand, they give power to the police and the investigation officer. The systems have failed to set strict rules that would be compelling the police to disclose sufficient information to the defendants (Hirschel, Wakefield & Sasse 2007, p. 374).
Forensic Evidence and Procedures which lead to Unsafe Convictions
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is one of the most effective tools, which forensic scientists employ in the bid to support a given case. DNA matching can support or discard an investigation process in a serious case such as arson or murder. Forensic scientists take the DNA of a person suspected to have committed a crime and compare it with DNA samples obtained from the scene of the crime. If the scientists can spot some similarities between the two DNA samples, then, there is strong evidence of implicating the suspect (Towl & Crighton 2010, p. 58).
However, there are cases in which the DNA samples are found to match in the initial stages. After some time, a thorough re-examination proves otherwise. In such cases, if the investigating personnel are not able to prove that none other than the suspect could have left the stain at the scene of a crime, then the samples would be considered misleading. In most cases, this would lead to miscarriage of the conviction that had been made earlier on (Munday 2007, p. 559).
Wrongly matched fingerprints could also lead to unsafe convictions. Fingerprints just like DNA samples are considered useful tools for prosecution. If fingerprints scientists can match a suspect’s fingerprints to samples collected from the scene of the crime, then it becomes strong evidence against the suspects. In some cases, these scientists may indicate that the two samples of fingerprints are matching. However, a later re-examination may indicate differently. In such a scenario, the conviction would be termed as unsafe (Doak & McGourlay 2009, p. 78).
Benefits of using Forensic Science Strategy in Arson Case
Forensic science investigation strategy employs science and technology to establish the most relevant evidence in cases of arson (Brookman 2010). The strategy involves collecting, analyzing, interpreting and matching DNA or fingerprint samples of the suspect and the ones collected from the scene of the crime. This way, the method only focuses on the findings deemed relevant, reliable and admissible (Bartol & Bartol 2006, p. 48). Forensic scientists through their findings have the freedom to testify in arson cases even if they did not physically witness the crime happening (Vacca & Rudolph 2011, p. 99).
Lastly, forensic evidence such as DNA and fingerprints samples can be used to determine if a suspect is not a first time offender (Elliot 2007). It is a common practice in the criminal justice system that subsequent offenders be treated more cautiously. The only way to discourage these kinds of offenders from re-committing other crimes is to impose heavier sentences on them the moment the court establishes that they are guilty (Vacca & Rudolph 2011, p. 103).
Developing Forensic Investigation Strategy in Arson Case
The first step in developing the forensic strategy involves the arrival of a senior investigating officer (SIO) at the scene of the arson. This kind of strategy permits the forensic investigators and the crime scene management (CSM) to ensure that their examinations conform to the priorities of the SIO. The conformation should be uniform from the start-up to the end of the investigation (White 2010, p. 49).
The SIO then plans for a meeting with the FMT. In this meeting, the two parties are supposed to determine the following. Firstly, the whereabouts of the victims, witnesses and suspects involved in the case and various scenes of the crime. Secondly, the establishment of various materials retrieved from these scenes (Stelfox 2009, p. 37).
To obtain useful information from the victims, these are some of the aspects that an SIO may need to verify. Whether there is more than one suspect and what the suspects might have touched, done, carried along to the scene or picked from the scene. It would also be of great importance if the officer established how the suspect might have entered the crime scene (White 2010, p. 50). The SIO may also verify if the suspect might have attempted to demolish possible evidence, the weapons he used to commit the offence and if he has any injuries on his body. Lastly, the SIO establishes the prevailing evidence that links the suspect to the crime (Cook & Tattersall 2008, p. 55).
After the establishment of those facts, the SIO then matches each material to its intended objectives after which, each activity is prioritized according to the requirements of the investigation process (Clark 2004). Other duties of the SIO include organizing the FMT, designing an effective plan for examination of the crime scene and monitoring the actions of other forensic personnel (White 2010, p. 52).
References
Bartol, CR & Bartol, AM 2006, Current perspective in forensic psychology and criminal justice, Sage, London.
Britain Law Commission 2009, The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales: a new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability: a consultative report, The Stationery office, Norwich.
Brookman, F, Maguire, M, Pierpoint, H & Bennett, T 2010, Handbook on crime, Willan, Cullompton.
Clark, D 2004, Bevan Lidstone’s the investigation of crime, Lexis Nexis, London.
Cook, T & Tattersall, A 2008, Senior investigating officer’s handbook, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Doak, J & McGourlay, C 2009, Criminal evidence in context, Routledge-Cavendish, London.
Duttelle, AW 2011, An introduction to crime scene investigation, Jones and Bartlett, London.
Elliot, C & Quinn, F 2007, The English legal system, Pearson Education, London.
Hirschel, JD, Wakefield, WO & Sasse, S 2007, Criminal justice in England and the United States, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
Ingram, J 2012, Criminal evidence, Anderson, Waltham, MA.
Jickells, S & Negrusz, A 2008, Clarke’s analytical forensic toxicology, Pharmaceutical Press, London.
Mason, P 2003, Criminal visions: media representations of crime and justice, Willan, Cullompton.
Monas, EB 2007, Evaluating scientific evidence: an interdisciplinary framework for intellectual due process, Cambridge University Press, London.
Munday, R 2007, Evidence, Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY.
Newburn, T, Williamson, T & Wright, A 2007, Handbook of criminal investigation, Willan, Cullompton.
Stelfox, P 2009, Criminal investigation: an introduction to principles and practice, Willan, Cullompton.
Terrill, RJ 2009, World criminal justice systems: a survey, Lexis Nexis, New Providence, NJ.
Towl, GJ & Crighton, DA 2010, Forensic psychology, BPS Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Vacca, JR & Rudolph, K 2011, Systems forensics, investigation, and response, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury, MA.
White, P 2010, Crime scene to court: the essentials of forensic science, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.