The law of 'Double Jeopardy' has been largely abolished in UK law. The news story can be found here. (http://www.itv.com/news/index_2094263.html)

In essence this means that people acqutted of serious crimes such as murder and rape can be re-tried for the same crime if new evidence emerges. The National Crime Faculty has already said they will look into 35 cases with a view to retrying people that have been acquitted. The law will apply retrospectively.

Call me a cynic, but has this news been deliberately announced at a time when there is a much bigger news story in the papers? Have the government deliberately done this to avoid a furore?

K x

Wow, I thought April Fool's day had come again. That was very sneaky, unless I've been missing something? I don't remember there being any previous suggestion that this was definitely going to happen.

Maybe I should just run back and hide in the cave I've been in for the past year or so.

If new evidence comes to light that might prove they were guilty then they should re-try the person, no ?

Originally posted by nick2
If new evidence comes to light that might prove they were guilty then they should re-try the person, no ?

I too agree with it in principle; certain cases spring to mind such as the people that (allegedly) killed Stephen Lawrence. I feel this might be one of the cases to be re-tried, and rightly so.

I just worry that the law could be corrupted; I've got my cynical head on today!

K x

I would imagine that they would have to come-up with some pretty good evidence to force a re-trial, not just "this eye-witness might have seen him do it, perhaps, it was a bit dark".

Originally posted by nick2
I would imagine that they would have to come-up with some pretty good evidence to force a re-trial, not just "this eye-witness might have seen him do it, perhaps, it was a bit dark".


It would have to be enough evidence to convict the accused, just as they would have (or believe to have had) first time round. otherwise it wouldn't even get close to coming to court.

There has to be evidence that was not available at the original trial. For example, with the advent of DNA testing, it may now be possible to prosecute folk again using DNA evidence that was not available at the original trial.

If this puts a murderer or a rapist behind bars, who could possibly disagree?

The law was passed by parliament some time ago, and was well covered by the media. It is now being implemented. There is no government conspiracy to hide news.

I think it was a silly law anyway so it's good if it's going to be scrapped. Why shouldn't new evidence that comes to light after a trial be used? Criminals should not be immune just because a jury made the wrong decision.

Originally posted by t020
Criminals should not be immune just because a jury made the wrong decision.

Or rather, they made the right decision based on what limited evidence there was available at the time.

Originally posted by nick2
Or rather, they made the right decision based on what limited evidence there was available at the time.

Semantics, semantics. They made the right decision at the time but in the end the wrong decision.

What a good idea, I would imagine that quite a few people currently walking around will be worried about this, probably heading for Heathrow, in the case of the murder of Julie Hogg her boyfriend was tried twice but the jury on each trial could not agree one way or the other.

He later admitted that he did kill her and was sentenced to 6 years for perjury looks like he could be one of the first one back in the dock.

Originally posted by Lickszz
What a good idea, I would imagine that quite a few people currently walking around will be worried about this, probably heading for Heathrow, in the case of the murder of Julie Hogg her boyfriend was tried twice but the jury on each trial could not agree one way or the other.

He later admitted that he did kill her and was sentenced to 6 years for perjury looks like he could be one of the first one back in the dock.

When you hear cases like this, it makes me realise what a good idea it is that the law has changed!

K x

Originally posted by Lickszz
....He later admitted that he did kill her and was sentenced to 6 years for perjury looks like he could be one of the first one back in the dock.

Not the brightest light bulb in the pack then? :loopy:

If he gets re-tried and goes down for murder I don't think we'll have lost one of society's greatest thinkers....

Originally posted by Ginner
Not the brightest light bulb in the pack then? :loopy:

If he gets re-tried and goes down for murder I don't think we'll have lost one of society's greatest thinkers....

I see your point Ginner, but there have been a few cases of this, especially when people have fled overseas!

I bet there are a lot of scared crims out there this week! Good!

K x

Originally posted by Kristian
I see your point Ginner, but there have been a few cases of this, especially when people have fled overseas!

Yup. Run and hide scumbags. Run......and.......hide.

In fact global extradition laws should also be passed whilst we're at it.

Originally posted by Ginner
Yup. Run and hide scumbags. Run......and.......hide.

In fact global extradition laws should also be passed whilst we're at it.

I think in an ideal world you're right, but for example, would you feel happy repatriating someone home to Iran to stand trial? That makes me nervous. What about countries from where we accept asylum seekers?

K x

About time... and theres an election on the way, they definately know how to push our buttons.

I definately think this will cause fear amongst all those smug scuzzies who think they are beyond capture.

I dont care if they leave the country as the law outside Britain is far harsher and they dont suffer fools like we do.

While we are at it lets bring back hanging!!

Originally posted by Kristian
I think in an ideal world you're right, but for example, would you feel happy repatriating someone home to Iran to stand trial? That makes me nervous. What about countries from where we accept asylum seekers?

K x

K,
I made a bit of a cocky comment with that, and your point got me thinking.... soooo, I ain't no lawyer but I think (hope) section 21 of the Extradition Act covers that:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30041--b.htm#21

This was the only case I knew of that maybe affected by the new laws when the Double Jeopardy rule was scrapped!!

I used to go to the same school as the victim ''Julie Ming'' as I knew her!

Why couldn't he have pleaded guilty before and saved her family (particularly her son) and friends so much heartache!!

At least he will now be punished for his crime albeit 15 years on!!

Full Story in tonights Sheffield Star (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=5054&ArticleID=1761047)

:(