Is the new UK Double Jeopardy law a good thing or a bad thing?

Answer 1

Well strictly speaking I think it is a good thing in murder cases and it has been around for a while in England & Wales. We do not have the same 'not proven' verdict like they do in Scotland as that is a completely different jurisdiction.

Double jeopardy in the the English Jurisdiction is also known as autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, the rules against double jeopardy and the elements can be found in the common law, in the case of Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254.

Of course these elements have exceptions as with all things in the English legal system and this double jeopardy rule has been modified and has now changed under the regime pescribed under the Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it has taken 800 years or so to bring about this exception to double jeopardy and retrials in certain cases under s.75 of that act.

Under s.76 the Prosecution may apply to the Court of Appeal quashing the Defendant's acquittal and ordering him to be retried for the qualifying offence. Such an application can only be made by written consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions .

However the re-trial can only be order if the requirements of ss.78 and 79 are satisfied.

Section 78 'new and compelling evidence' and section 79 if it is in the interests of justice.

Answer 2

I think it is an extremely good thing. After all it only admits the fallability of the courts, and those who make descisions in them. And it takes a long time for evidence to arise in many cases. This should greatly improve our legal system and result in more fair convictions. I understand why this rule was introduced initially to protect peoples lives from continuous trial and accusation, but now that the courts have much more visibility within the media and much less secrecy internally, this kind of harassment would be very obvious to any member of public.

Answer 3

This is definitely a good thing , in the case that brought about the return of the double jeopardy law , the killer confessed he had killed Julie after he had been found not guilty TWICE by the jury . i used to go to school with the girl he killed and thanks to her mam the law has now been changed . these Pratts that go on about human right`s get right up my nose , the human right`s only seem to benefit the criminals out there and the sooner the government get`s rid of it the better , they have TV`s DVD`s curtains, and even fookin carpet`s in prison now ! all because of the human right`s bill ...........

Answer 4

england have a law which is used often in scotland a not proven verdict which meant without the double jeopardy law you could still be tried for the same crime so why bring another law in that did the same thing ???

Answer 5

Obviously a good thing. After all the individual who pleaded guilty today had already been acquitted twice after which he confessed knowing that he could not be tried again. Not only is he now facing a long prison sentence but he must feel incredibly stupid.

Answer 6

I'm not sure. It's good in the sense that it may allow high profile cases where the police messed up the intital investigation to be retried, i.e the Stephen Lawrence case. But I can't help but wonder if this doesn't mean if the police/CPS set their sights on someone, they'll try them and try them and try them until they get the result they want...

Answer 7

Its a great thing if it is used for the purposes for which it was written.
It also goes some way to redress the balance between the rights of victims against the rights of defendants.

Answer 8

Not so good. And it's not obvious it will withstand attack under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Governmentis forever passing laws just to appease the public's anger that it isn't accomplishing anything.

Answer 9

A very good thing. Too many criminals get away with crimes that may now have a better chance of a conviction.

Answer 10

alex trebeck might say its a good thing... but i honestly do not know