Criminal Justice and Policing: A Report on the Blackburn Case Analysis

This report provides a detailed analysis of the James Harold Blackburn case, focusing on the misrepresentations and questionable practices of the investigating police officers. It examines the exculpatory evidence that was either ignored or not presented, including witness statements, alibis, and forensic findings that contradicted the prosecution's claims. The report delves into the issues surrounding identification evidence, highlighting the biases introduced by showing photographs to witnesses before identification procedures, and the failure to adhere to Common Law statutes. It explores the rules of admissibility under the Evidence Act, particularly section 165, and how the court could have excluded the evidence. The report critically assesses the reliability and admissibility of the positive identifications made in the Georges Hall and Sutherland attacks, pointing out discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of due diligence in criminal proceedings and the potential for unfairness when evidence is improperly handled, ultimately arguing that the justice process failed to give due consideration to key factors.

Page1
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICING
Introduction
It is very much evident that the case against Mr Blackburn had been conceived by the
investigating police officers under very suspicious circumstances. It was nurtured on the
basis of doubtful as well as insubstantial evidence and was presented to the public with
a fanfare of publicity. James Harold Blackburn was a regular person with a satisfactory
social behaviour and was leading a contended married life. His wife Lyn Blackburn
never had any reason to suspect her husband. This becomes more credible on her part as
the police tried to put the span of Blackburn’s wrong doings over a period of 20 years.
In the opinion of this study paper, a person has to be a thoroughly accomplished actor
and an intensive manipulator of human psychology to have fooled his own life for 20
years. The purpose of this study paper is to go into the misrepresentations made by the
investigating police officers and their creation of circumstantial evidence for putting all
the blame on a person who probably was never even aware of the crimes for which he
was held responsible.
Discussion
1. Evidence in Favour of Blackburn
The Investigating police officers had ‘gathered’ enough exculpatory evidence, which
they, for reasons known best to them, did not put on record or did not present it in the
court. Some of this exculpatory evidence was the claim made by witnesses produced by
the police who stated that Blackburn was not the attacker, assert Bosworth & Hoyle
(ed.), (2012). For one of the instances, Blackburn even had a valid alibi, but that was
completely ignored. Forensic experts from the police department could not find any
fingerprints from the crime scenes which matched those of Blackburn. Even the blood
and semen samples taken from some of the crime scenes did not match with
Blackburn’s blood group, as per Earle, (2016).
2. Defining Identification Evidence

Page2
One of the main aspect on which Blackburn was tried as a culprit in the court was the
presentation of their ‘identification evidence’ by the investigating team. The Common
Law statutes were totally side-lined not only by the investigating officers, even the court
did not follow the designated procedure nor did it take into consideration the challenges
posed by these wrong representation of the investigating police officers, as detailed by
Tierney, (2009). The biggest legal gaff committed by the investigating officers was to
show Blackburn’s photograph to the witnesses in order to establish the fact whether to
charge or arrest Blackburn. Once the visual identity of the accused person is disclosed
to the witness, prior presenting the accused for an ‘identification’ before the witness, the
identification becomes biased, asserts Barak, (2009). In view of this paper, the
honourable judge had the following options to choose from while rejecting the
authenticity of the ‘identification’ evidence produced by the investigating team.
(a) An admissibility of the identification evidence, as per Common Law, will be
subjected to the discretion of trial judge, as it can reject the evidence on the
basis of it showing a prejudicial value that outweighs the expected probative
value. In Common Law circles it is known as the ‘Christie’ discretion (R
v Christie [1914] AC 545, 559-560). This was also cited in the case of R v
McLean and Funk, Ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 231, where the
court recognised that the otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded
if it is found to be unfair for the accused and may cause a miscarriage of
justice for the accused, as per Simpson, Harrison & Martin, (2012).
(b) In some cases (R v Doolan [1962] Qd R 449) the courts have ruled that
evidence can also be excluded if it is obtained illegally or in an improper
manner or where its inclusion can result in an unfair trial.
(c) As per the common law, the judge also has the discretion of withdrawing the
evidence from the jury, even after having been admitted, in case it becomes
clear that the evidence was insufficiently probative for the consideration of
the jury.
3. Making Evidence Reliable Under the Evidence Act
As is explained in s 165 of the Evidence Act, A995, if police is substantiating the view
that Blackburn had committed a series of rapes, and all were inter-connected, as per
their belief, and because of their “striking similarities”, then the investigators must
prove it substantially, as detailed by Finch & Fafinski, (2016). But the investigators did

Page3
find, and witnesses did corroborate this, that Blackburn could not be the assaulting
person in many of the crimes as he does not match the description, given by the
witnesses, of the attacker. This also could not be proved because Blackburn’s blood
group was found to be different. Moreover, in some cases he was able to provide an
alibi, says Williams, (2012). These discrepancies in the case of the prosecution seriously
pose the question whether Blackburn could be the alleged serial attacker in all the
offences.
Regarding the claims by the prosecution of identification in the (A1) incident (Georges
Hall), the court observed, and I quote “whilst Mrs R’s “identification” could probably
be used as a basis for further inquiry, it would be quite impossible to use it as a
justification for an arrest or allow it to be admitted into evidence to be considered by a
jury with a view to finding guilt, for there is no way one could ever be sure that it was a
reliable identification”. Unquote.
4. Rules of Admissibility
In Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395, Mason J has referred to application of
the unfairness discretion towards using the photographs by the police. Mason J, while
citing instances, posed the question that such acts could be prejudiced against an
accused person, as explained by Case et al, (2017). Such instances could create
circumstances where the photographs can make suggestions to the witness as they
belonged to the police record. In some instances, the collection of photographs which
were shown to the identifying witness, were such that the accused was already
highlighted or was shown to stand-out, as described by Case et al, (2017).
According to the Blackburn Report, such admissibility has proven to be inappropriate
from the point of Common Law. It could have proved to be inappropriate even under s
70 of the Evidence Ordinance, 1971 and the Evidence Act, 1977 (Qld).
Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1995 also, as per Newburn, (2017), states that if the
case is heard by a jury and one of the party to the case so requests, the judge must –
(a) warn the jury about the unreliability of the evidence; and
(b) inform the jury about the causes which make it unreliable; and

Page4
(c) caution the jury of the need for determining if the evidence needs to be accepted and
if accepted, the weight it should be given while delivering the judgement.
The final effect of s 165 of the Act should not be to make the evidence as inadmissible,
but to put a note of caution to the jury about the fact that the evidence is unreliable. On
the same lines, ss135, 137and 138 of the Act also provide a general discretion for
exclusion of inadmissible evidence, as stated by Newburn, (2017). These sections give
credence to the court ruling when they refuse to admit evidence if it is found that its
probative value is substantially outweighed because of the danger that such an evidence
may be found to be –
(a) unfairly prejudicial to one of the party; or
(b) misleading or confusing; or
(c) the cause or result in undue wastage of court’s time.
5. Three Positive Identifications in the Georges Hall Attacks: Their Reliability
and Admissibility
 In the A1 attack, a female R identified Blackburn as the attacker. However, in
her previous statement, she already had identified two other males who were
finally eliminated because of their alibi.
 In the A2 attack, a female A identified Blackburn 19 years after the crime, that
too from photos. But there were discrepancies in her description of the attacker
in her earlier statement about how Blackburn looked like at the time of the
crime.
 In the A3 attack, the male and female victims picked Blackburn and another
male from their black and white photographs. However, this could not be
authenticated as their attacker were constantly masked, and this was not a
“positive identification” as described by police.
6. Two Positive identifications in the Sutherland Attacks: Their Reliability
and Admissibility
 A male M in the B7 attack, which happened on 25/6/88, identified Blackburn
from the photos. But in his earlier statement he had said that the offender had his
face covered.

Page5
 The female in the B7 attack not only failed to identify Blackburn, but
categorically stated that her attacker was NOT in the photographs shown to her
as she had NOT seen the attacker. This made it quite clear that police forced M
to identify Blackburn.
Conclusion
This paper rests its case with the following observations –
In a criminal proceeding, a court can refuse admittance of evidence or may refuse to
admit the evidence for proving a particular fact, if (a) the evidence has been adduced by
the prosecution; and (b) taking into consideration the circumstances under which the
admission had been made, it may be unfair to the defendant to use the evidence, as
proclaimed by Case et al, (2017). It can be said conclusively that none of the above
stated four factors were given due diligence during the process of justice.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Barak, G. 2009, Criminology: An Integrated Approach. Rowman & Littlefield,
Plymouth.
Bosworth, M. and Hoyle, C. (ed.). 2012, What is Criminology? OUP Oxford, Oxford.
Case, S., Johnson, P., Manlow, D., Smith, R. and Williams, K. 2017, Criminology.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Earle, R. 2016, Convict Criminology: Inside and Out. Policy Press, Bristol.
Finch, E. and Fafinski, S. 2016, Criminology Skills. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Page6
Newburn, T. 2017, Criminology, 3rd ed.. Routledge, Oxon.
Simpson, M., Harrison, O. and Martin, E. 2012, Study Skills for Criminology. SAGE,
London.
Tierney, J. 2009, Key Perspectives in Criminology. McGraw-Hill Education (UK),
Berkshire.
Williams, K.S. 2012, Textbook on Criminology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.