The investigative stage and the analysis of evidence recovered are critically important as they will go on to form the prosecution’s case against the accused (Langdon & Wilson, 2005). Brookman, (2005) notes that in this early investigative phase of gathering evidence from a crime scene, it’s not unusual for errors to be identified, as the crime scene is often a scene of chaos, as police officers and investigative teams gather together. The combination of forensic crime scene errors and the over-reliance on circumstantial evidence may often lead to wrongful convictions. Consequently it is on these grounds that Farquharson’s was granted a retrial, with Victoria's highest court finding that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred (Milovanovic, 2009). While Farquharson has always maintained he suffered from a coughing fit and was not in control of his vehicle when it veered off the road and into a dam killing his three sons.
…show more content…
The prosecution’s case was that it was not an accident and presented a case which involved four components of evidence: medical, reconstruction of the vehicle pathway, testimony from Farquharson’s close friend Mr King and the accused dam-side behaviour (Farquharson). Firstly, medical evidence centred on the uncommonness and questionability of the condition that Farquharson had presented with cough syncope. While the defence had presented evidence at the trial of Farquharson’s previous medical history of coughing fits and called upon specialist to confirm the condition, it was generally agreed that the condition was rare. The prosecution was able to provide more evidence of the general rarity of the condition and that Mr Farquharson did not fit the description of a man who was likely to suffer from cough syncope. Evidence regarding the reconstruction of the vehicle pathway was considered to be flawed. Of particular importance was photographic evidence of the “yellow marks” made by police to stipulate the tyre markings of the car driven by Mr Farquharson. Defence argued that police errors were made that night collecting evidence, for instance it was the admission of Sergeant Exton that he had made a mistake on the accuracy of the markings made and that those marking were taken under less than optimal lighting (Tyson, 2009). Furthermore it was these same yellow markings that were placed into a …show more content…
The prosecution and police have the benefit of gaining access to as much information about the crime, giving them the initial advantage as a result full and adequate disclosure is of utmost importance. Inadequate disclosure is often regarded as more of a procedural failing, not directly influencing the outcome of the trial, however when it involves the credibility of a witness and their testimony it runs the risk of an unfair trial considerably (Macfarlane, 2006). Likewise in this case, the prosecution failed to disclose prior to the verdict that Mr King had indictable offence charges pending and police had agreed to delay charges until after the trail. According to the R v Farquharson (no44) (2009) Mr King claimed Farquharson had told him he would, “Kill them”, that “There’d be an accident where I survive and the kids don’t. It’d be on a special day … Something like Father’s Day.” Consequently the defence viewed Mr King as a witness that had more to gain by giving evidence consistent with a version that would gain him the benefit of a favourable plea bargain and the assistance of the police in court when it came to his own sentence hearing (Farquharson). Failure to disclose rendered the defence unable to discrete Mr King in front of the
The prosecution’s case was that it was not an accident and presented a case which involved four components of evidence: medical, reconstruction of the vehicle pathway, testimony from Farquharson’s close friend Mr King and the accused dam-side behaviour (Farquharson). Firstly, medical evidence centred on the uncommonness and questionability of the condition that Farquharson had presented with cough syncope. While the defence had presented evidence at the trial of Farquharson’s previous medical history of coughing fits and called upon specialist to confirm the condition, it was generally agreed that the condition was rare. The prosecution was able to provide more evidence of the general rarity of the condition and that Mr Farquharson did not fit the description of a man who was likely to suffer from cough syncope. Evidence regarding the reconstruction of the vehicle pathway was considered to be flawed. Of particular importance was photographic evidence of the “yellow marks” made by police to stipulate the tyre markings of the car driven by Mr Farquharson. Defence argued that police errors were made that night collecting evidence, for instance it was the admission of Sergeant Exton that he had made a mistake on the accuracy of the markings made and that those marking were taken under less than optimal lighting (Tyson, 2009). Furthermore it was these same yellow markings that were placed into a …show more content…
The prosecution and police have the benefit of gaining access to as much information about the crime, giving them the initial advantage as a result full and adequate disclosure is of utmost importance. Inadequate disclosure is often regarded as more of a procedural failing, not directly influencing the outcome of the trial, however when it involves the credibility of a witness and their testimony it runs the risk of an unfair trial considerably (Macfarlane, 2006). Likewise in this case, the prosecution failed to disclose prior to the verdict that Mr King had indictable offence charges pending and police had agreed to delay charges until after the trail. According to the R v Farquharson (no44) (2009) Mr King claimed Farquharson had told him he would, “Kill them”, that “There’d be an accident where I survive and the kids don’t. It’d be on a special day … Something like Father’s Day.” Consequently the defence viewed Mr King as a witness that had more to gain by giving evidence consistent with a version that would gain him the benefit of a favourable plea bargain and the assistance of the police in court when it came to his own sentence hearing (Farquharson). Failure to disclose rendered the defence unable to discrete Mr King in front of the