Historically, English criminal law stood against repeated retrials of alleged offenders - the double jeopardy rule. Hence, if a defendant (D) was either acquitted or convicted of an offence he could not be tried again for that offence.
It was a rule that prevented persecution of individuals but was also capable of producing distressing results especially in cases where there was new evidence justifying a retrial.
Reform to the double jeopardy rule came with Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act). This permits retrials but only in respect of a number of qualifying offences, where new and compelling evidence has come to light.
The list
of qualifying offences is set out in Schedule 5 to the 2003 Act - HERE. The qualifying offences include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape etc. (In this respect, Parliament went further than the Law Commission recommended).The legislation is quite complex and is explained by the Crown Prosecution Service (HERE). Suffice to say that there are several safeguards in the reformed law. The personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required. New and compelling must have subsequently come to light which indicates that an acquitted person was in fact guilty. Also, the prosecuting authorities have to apply to the Court of Appeal for an acquittal to be quashed and for a retrial to take place
The road to this law reform was a long one.
On 2 July 1999 the Home Secretary (then Jack Straw MP) made a reference to this Commission in the following terms:
'To consider the law of England and Wales relating to double jeopardy (after acquittal), taking into account: recommendation 38 of the Macpherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry that consideration should be given to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented; the powers of the prosecution to re-instate criminal proceedings; and also the United Kingdom’s international obligations; and to make recommendations.'
The Law Commission duly reported in March 2001 and its report is available via the Commission's website - HERE. The Commission recommended an exception to the double jeopardy rule and also recommended that the new exception should apply equally to acquittals which took place prior to the exception coming into force.
Reforming legislation eventually arrived with the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The Julie Hogg murder in 1989
Apart from the Stephen Lawrence case, there were a number of other cases where families of victims had pressured, often over many years, for law reform.
One such case was the murder on Tees-side of Julie Hogg in 1989 who was murdered by William Dunlop. He mutilated her body and concealed it behind a bath panel. It was discovered, by Julie's mother, in 1990.
Dunlop actually stood trial on two occasions. The jury failed to agree a verdict at the first trial and a retrial was held at which the jury could not reach a majority verdict. Dunlop was then acquitted on the direction of the trial judge.
Following reform of the law on double jeopardy. it became possible to retry Dunlop. New and compelling evidence had come to light. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17 year minimum term.
The campaign conducted by Julie mother is an undoubted testament to a mother's love for her child.
Dunlop's minimum term ended on 15 September 2021 and he remains in custody. A recent application to move him to open prison was made and the Parole Board agreed. However, the Secretary of State for Justice (Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood) rejected that recommendation.
The Parole Board has published some details of the most recent hearing and I recommend reading it fully. It offers an explanation of the processes within the Parole Board for such cases and, at least for law students, that is essential information.
Links
Wikipedia - Double jeopardy
The Julie Hogg murder is the subject of a recent ITV production - I fought the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment