Double Jeopardy is a general principle of English law, that a person will not be tried twice for the same offence whether he was acquitted on the first occasion (autrefois acquit) or convicted (autrefois convict) Connelly v DPP [1964]. This has been established for many centuries. There might be instances when a person guilty of a crime may gain immunity from conviction and punishment.
There are some reforms made in order to make this rule better. The first development is concerned with the increase in scientific advancement that there might be a change in compelling evidence of a person’s guilt long after the crime has been committed. The second development is concerned with the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence.
In July …show more content…
The human rights organisation commented that, removal of this rule will help in convicting the serious criminals; although unfortunately it will lead to numerous prosecutions of many innocent people. Liberty added that – If there were any removal of the bar and there were retrospective re-trials the effect would’ve be even more prejudicial to a fair trial…What is being said is ‘We are so certain that you are guilty that the law has been changed to bring you to justice’. Quite simply no one can have a fair trial in these circumstances, as every jury will be aware of the circumstances which lead to the retrial. The writings in The Observer were also very critical: This Government’s attitude to rights is further demonstrated in the proposal to abolish the 'double jeopardy' rule. This is a most cynical exploitation of the case of Stephen Lawrence. Of course it was humiliating and frustrating for the Lawrence family, after so many years of struggle to highlight the injustice they had suffered, to see the alleged killers of their child defiantly flaunting the fact that they were now outside the law's reach. Yet a rule which has served us well over so many centuries should not be jettisoned because of one experience - however dreadful. The potential consequences are even graver. The assumption at a re-trial, brought about because of the emergence of 'new and compelling' evidence, would be that …show more content…
There is a very high risk of the new trial being an unfair one mainly in high profile cases. In any situation the Prosecution will have slight knowledge about the defendant’s case and might strengthen his own case, this might be a disadvantage and will affect in the decision made. The Government suggested that the new evidence can be considered only if could not be available in the first trial due to reasonable circumstances. Abolition against this rule will motivate the victim’s expectations
There are some reforms made in order to make this rule better. The first development is concerned with the increase in scientific advancement that there might be a change in compelling evidence of a person’s guilt long after the crime has been committed. The second development is concerned with the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence.
In July …show more content…
The human rights organisation commented that, removal of this rule will help in convicting the serious criminals; although unfortunately it will lead to numerous prosecutions of many innocent people. Liberty added that – If there were any removal of the bar and there were retrospective re-trials the effect would’ve be even more prejudicial to a fair trial…What is being said is ‘We are so certain that you are guilty that the law has been changed to bring you to justice’. Quite simply no one can have a fair trial in these circumstances, as every jury will be aware of the circumstances which lead to the retrial. The writings in The Observer were also very critical: This Government’s attitude to rights is further demonstrated in the proposal to abolish the 'double jeopardy' rule. This is a most cynical exploitation of the case of Stephen Lawrence. Of course it was humiliating and frustrating for the Lawrence family, after so many years of struggle to highlight the injustice they had suffered, to see the alleged killers of their child defiantly flaunting the fact that they were now outside the law's reach. Yet a rule which has served us well over so many centuries should not be jettisoned because of one experience - however dreadful. The potential consequences are even graver. The assumption at a re-trial, brought about because of the emergence of 'new and compelling' evidence, would be that …show more content…
There is a very high risk of the new trial being an unfair one mainly in high profile cases. In any situation the Prosecution will have slight knowledge about the defendant’s case and might strengthen his own case, this might be a disadvantage and will affect in the decision made. The Government suggested that the new evidence can be considered only if could not be available in the first trial due to reasonable circumstances. Abolition against this rule will motivate the victim’s expectations