discuss whether an advanced criminal justice system should continue to allow eyewitness testimony or confession evidence as the sole evidence to convict.

In the context of contemporary crime science, including developments in forensic science and passive data, discuss whether an advanced criminal justice system should continue to allow eyewitness testimony or confession evidence as the sole evidence to convict.
This assessments must be referenced in APA 7th edition format.
(PS, Last time I did this lecturer work, he marked me heavily on the fact that I haven’t read his topics etc and that I need to show that I have read the topics within my essay – I have added the topic of witness, if you can some how link it to show I have understood, that would be fanatic
Introduction
In this topic we will look at witnesses and examine what a witness is, the rules around the giving of witness statements and the role of ‘expert witnesses’.
We will then look briefly at the training interviewing officers receive.
What is a ‘witness’?
The importance of witnesses was mentioned in the ‘History of Investigations’ topic where Peter Greenwood’s RAND study (1979) found that in America the most significant determinant of whether a crime would be solved was the quantity and quality of information provided by public.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a ‘witness’ as; ‘a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place’
However, within the context of a criminal investigation, a witness is broader in definition than this.
It also includes a person who claims to have, or is thought to have, testimony to give which is relevant to a crime or suspected crime. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know about the crime.
Think of examples where a person comes forward claiming to have witnessed an event
A person does not necessarily have to actually see or hear a crime to be a witness. Most witnesses in a crime investigation may be witnesses before or after the fact. For example, a person who is asked to identify some stolen property or to prove the continuity of a piece of evidence
Example – A person who transports a piece of forensic evidence to a forensic scientist for examination may be a witness as to the continuity of that piece of evidence.
A hearsay witness is one who testifies what someone else said or wrote. In the main, hearsay evidence is not permitted in England and Wales, however there are exceptions, such as when the original witness is:
• Dead
• Unfit to be a witness because of bodily or mental condition
• Outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure their attendance
• Cannot be found, and reasonably practicable steps to find them have been taken
• Afraid to testify or continue to testify
There are other reasons that hearsay evidence may be accepted by the court such as when this is in the public interest and when there is evidence of other ‘similar facts’ to that which the person is charged. An example of similar fact evidence is the 1915 ‘Brides in the Bath’ case when three women had died mysteriously in their baths; in each case, the death appeared to be an accident. George Joseph Smith was the suspect in all three murders and was brought to trial for the murder of one of them, Bessie Mundy and later hanged on conviction. The death of the other two woman was accepted as evidence that Smith used the same system to kill his victims. This was the first time that the death of two other women in similar circumstances was used as ‘similar fact’ evidence.
Visit the CPS website and consider other cases where the court may accept hearsay evidence.
It is important to point out that a witness is different to an informant. An informant is a person who passes on information with the expectation of anonymity.
A witness can be compelled to attend court and give evidence. If they refuse to attend, the court can issue a summons and if they still refuse, the court can issue a warrant for arrest. Failure to attend court could be a ‘contempt of court’.
In the event that a witness feels too frightened or distressed to give evidence, special measures may be used. An order called a special measures direction may be made by the court following an application by either party to the proceedings or by the judge’s. In order for a special measure direction to be made, the court must be satisfied that the quality of the witness’ evidence may be lessened by their fear and distress (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.17 (1)). There are a number of factors that a court must take into account when deciding whether to make a special measures direction relating to fear, these are: the witness’s age; type of offence the accused is being tried for and the alleged circumstances surrounding the offence; the ethnicity of the witness and their social and cultural background; the witness’ religious and political beliefs and opinions and; the accused’s behaviour towards the witness as well as that of his family or anyone he associates with. (NOTE: Special Measures are covered in more depth in the Level 6 Unit Critical Issues in Public Protection Policing)
A witness usually provides a written statement. However, it is possible to summons a person to give evidence to a court if it can be shown that that person has evidence to give (for instance they have told a police officer what they saw but refuse to make a statement).
A witness statement in criminal case is made in accordance with Section 9 of the Reference to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
The declaration on the statement states:
This statement consisting of xx pages each signed by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall /be liable for prosecution if I have stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
By signing this declaration, if the court agrees, the statement can be tendered in evidence without the witness actually attending.
Visit the CPS website Section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 is little used but is an alternative way of admitting evidence without attendance at court. This is a formal statement agreeing facts which both the prosecution agree and is tendered to the court instead of having to call witnesses or prove issues which are not in dispute.

3 types of witness
There are broadly 3 types of witness:
1. Witness as to the fact
2. Professional Witnesses
3. Expert witnesses
1. Witness to the fact
Most witnesses fall into this category. They are persons who actually saw, heard or have pertinent factual information which will assist either the defence or prosecution in a case.
If a person has actually seen (i.e. an eye witness) a crime or a significant event occur there are rules as to what should be in the witness statement so that the court can make a judgement about how reliable the testimony is likely to be. These rules were decided in a case called R v Turnbull (1976 and investigators use the ADVOKATE pneumonic (below) to help make sure they cover the necessary detail in the witness statement.
A amount of time under observation.
D distance from suspect.
V visibility. (Night, day, lighting?)
O obstructions to the view of the witness.
K known or seen before (when and where).
A any special reason for remembering the suspect?
T Time lapse, how long has elapsed since witness saw suspect?
E error or material discrepancy between the description given in the first and any subsequent accounts by the witness.
Consider why it was decided that the ADVOCATE pneumonic was necessary in a witness statement.
If a person actually sees or hears a crime in progress, or they are the actual victim, they may be deemed to be a ‘significant witness’. It is common practice to conduct the interview of a significant witness on tape or video recording. This is partly so that the court can, if necessary, be satisfied that the taking of the statement was not influenced in any way by the statement taker. Any criminal investigator should be trained to take witness statements carefully, using only the information which the witness actually knows, but sometimes, even by accident, the statement taker may misconstrue something or even inadvertently suggest a piece of information which the witness then agrees with.
2. Professional Witness
A professional witness is simply a witness of fact who is such a witness in the course of his or her profession or business. An example would be a police officer or a social worker. They are not necessarily ‘experts’ in the sense that they are not permitted to give evidence of their opinion. However there is one exception to this in respect of police officers who are permitted to give their opinion as to whether someone is under the influence of alcohol.
3. Expert Witness
Experts are very important to the Criminal Justice System. This is because there is not always unequivocal forensic proof or eye witness testimony and often information has got to be collated and interpreted by a person with sufficient understanding, knowledge and training to satisfy a court of law that an opinion is a valid one.
The Expert Witness Institute defines an expert witness as:
‘An expert can be anyone with knowledge of or experience in a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman. An expert witness is an expert who makes this knowledge and experience available to a court (or other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, e.g. tribunals, arbitrations, official enquiries, etc.) to help it understand the issues in a case and thereby reach a sound and just decision’
Visit the website of the Expert Witness Institute. Why do you think there is such an organisation?
There is also an organisation called the Institute of Expert Witnesses and the Academy of Expert Witnesses
The question as to whether a witness is actually an ‘expert’ in their field is one for the Judge who will consider the persons qualifications and experience. The difference between an expert witness and a witness to fact is that an expert is permitted to give relevant opinion. Opinion is an exception to the hearsay rules.
Because this evidence is only opinion, in the English courts there are clear rules around what the expert must and must not do to satisfy the court. The CPS have issued guidance on expert witnesses, and useful information here.
For more English court guidance, see also the Criminal Procedure Rules (Part 19) which deals with Expert Witnesses
Read the CPS Guidance document. Why do you think that there are strict rules concerning the giving of expert evidence?
In England and Wales, under the Criminal Procedure Rules , an expert witness is required to be independent and address his or her expert report to the court. They are not expected to have any loyalty to one side or the other.
For an international dimension, you may wish to research the United States ‘Daubert’ standard which deals with the admissibility of scientific evidence in court.
Miscarriages of Justice caused by witnesses
Miscarriages of justice are often blamed on police wrongdoing but in actual fact the police and CPS are sometimes themselves unwitting victims when witnesses fail to properly discharge their duties to the court.
The earliest known use of an expert witness in English law came in 1782, when a court that was hearing litigation relating to the silting-up of Wells Harbour in Norfolk. In that case the court accepted evidence from a leading civil engineer, John Smeaton and the decision by the court to accept Smeaton’s evidence is widely cited as the root of modern rules on expert evidence.