Murder Trial if Not Guilty in Britain Can You Be Tried Again

lady justice bronze statue The rule against double jeopardy is an important part of the criminal law of England and Wales, although exceptions to the rule were created in 2003. It means that a person cannot exist tried twice for the same crime. One time they take been acquitted (constitute not guilty), they cannot exist prosecuted over again even if new evidence emerges or they later confess. Thus when William Dunlop confessed to a prison officeholder in 1999 that he had killed 22-year-one-time Julie Hogg ten years earlier, he could only exist charged with perjury because he had already been acquitted of her murder.

The double jeopardy rule is an of import protection for individuals confronting the abuse of state power. It stops police and prosecutors from repeatedly investigating and prosecuting the aforementioned individual for the same crime without very proficient reason. The rule encourages them to prepare the case properly on the first occasion, and to accept the court's verdict. Equally, when a person is plant not guilty in court, they know that the example is really over. Being the subject of a criminal accusation can exist a difficult and distressing feel, with significant consequences for the accused – who may be innocent.

English law has had the double jeopardy rule for over 800 years, but it was partially abolished in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Scotland would follow in 2011). In sure, very limited circumstances a person who was acquitted of a criminal offence can now exist investigated and put on trial once more than. But why was this modify made?

One of the key reasons is the evolution of Deoxyribonucleic acid prove. The ability to match traces at a crime scene to a specific individual has had a huge impact upon criminal cases. Some people who were convicted of crimes afterwards had their innocence established by DNA bear witness. Other people had been acquitted before Deoxyribonucleic acid show, which might prove their guilt, became available. If in that location was compelling new evidence that they had committed a crime, was it right that they could non be prosecuted?

That question was raised in some very loftier-profile cases. Julie Hogg's mother was a leading campaigner for the law to be changed, and calls for reform were given fresh impetus post-obit the Stephen Lawrence murder in 1993. The original police investigation of this racist killing was seriously flawed, and did non result in criminal charges. When the family unit brought a private prosecution of three suspects, all three were acquitted. The Macpherson Report on the case recommended that the double jeopardy rule should exist removed to allow a further prosecution if fresh testify emerged. The 2003 law modify helped pave the way for one of those suspects, Gary Dobson, to exist bedevilled of the murder in 2012.

There take been only a handful of prosecutions brought nether the new law. The first was William Dunlop, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to Julie Hogg's murder post-obit his before confession. 3 years afterwards, Mario Celaire was convicted after a trial for his ex-girlfriend Cassandra McDermott'south murder, following the attempted murder of another ex-girlfriend, Kara Hoyte. Not all the subsequent double jeopardy cases have involved murder: Wendell Baker was convicted of the 1997 rape of a 66-year-old adult female in 2013, although his victim had since died.

The small number of cases is no blow: there are enervating legal tests which must exist met in 'double jeopardy' cases, and a special process to be followed. Get-go, the rule has simply been reformed for the well-nigh serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot confront a 2nd trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP volition consider not just the strength of the evidence, but as well whether reopening the example is in the public interest.

The investigation can only pb to a fresh prosecution if 'new and compelling' testify is uncovered. To be 'new', it must non have been available for the original prosecution. 'Compelling' means very stiff, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to become the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must and so persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal volition consider not only the strength of the case, just also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case then onetime that a fair trial is no longer possible.

Finally, there can only exist one retrial. If the defendant is acquitted again, they cannot be prosecuted for that criminal offence in future, even if more evidence emerges.

There was concern that abolishing the dominion against double jeopardy could pb to persecution of suspects who had already been bedevilled, and to prosecutors being too willing to utilize the new law for a 'second bite of the cherry'. Notwithstanding, these stringent safeguards seem to have prevented that happening. And importantly, the new rules allow guilty people to exist brought to justice, providing closure to victims or their families.

Take your learning further

Like law? Check out these courses...

alcazardecten77.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-double-jeopardy

0 Response to "Murder Trial if Not Guilty in Britain Can You Be Tried Again"

Postar um comentário

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel