When Did The Law Change, So That People Can Be Tried For The Same Crime Twice

[Marijn]

When did the law change that someone can now be tried for the same crime more than once? I remember it was changed because of a victim's mother campaigning for a change in the law. but I can't remember who. Thanks

[sherrardk]

Is this what ou are looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Post-2003

[mazie]

Here's a link that might help Marijn

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/your_rights/500394.html

[pixie373]

Was it Sarah's Law? I think the difference is that you can only try twice if new evidence has become available.

[rockyracoon]

The 2003 Criminal Justice Act scrapped double jeopardy, I think it was Doreen Lawrence that was a major campaigner and eventually saw one of Stephen's killers jailed.

I think I got that right :)

[Marijn]

Thanks all very much. It's shocking that the law was only changed a handful of years ago. People were literally getting away with murder up until then. Thanks again.

[jake-the-peg]

Well I wouldn't say shocking

It's a very contraversial protection to stop people getting tried and tried again until the prosecution get the verdict that they want.

It has strict safeguards - it must be a serious crime - you cant do this for shoplifting or burglary for example and there has to be significant new evidence - I think a judge has to approve.

At the moment though the system seems to be working fairly well

[New Judge]

Yes the law would not have been needed to accommodate the Lawrence family had they heeded the advice they were given warning them against launching a private prosecution. In 1993/4 the CPS had twice declined to proceed as they suggested that, at that time, insufficient evidence existed to support a conviction. The Lawrence family persisted with a private prosecution against Neil Acourt, Luke Knight and Gary Dobson. The three were duly acquitted in 1996 vindicating the CPS stance and (without the subsequent change in the law) putting paid to the three suspects being convicted.

The MacPherson report into the murder and police handling of the case reported in 1999 and among its recommendations (having branded the Metropolitan Police as “institutionally racist" as well as coming up with an absolutely preposterous definition of a “racist incident“) was that the double jeopardy law be re-examined.The rest is history and the double jeopardy law was subsequently abandoned, albeit in the very limited circumstances that Jake describes.

[sandyRoe]

Was this not the murder which prompted a change in the law?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/12/ukcrime.topstories3

[New Judge]

I don’t believe it was, Sandy. Although this case pre-dates the Stephen Lawrence murder I am firmly of the belief that the law would not have been changed but for the MacPherson report. In fact the article you provide almost confirms this:

“Pressure to allow defendants who had been acquitted of a crime to be retried for the same offence intensified following the murder of the teenager Stephen Lawrence…”

And as I said earlier, certainly in the Lawrence case, such a change would not have been necessary had the Lawrence family (aided and abetted by Michael Mansfield, QC) not been so hasty.

[Orderlimit]

Here is the law reference Retrials of Serious Offences if interested

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrial_of_serious_offences/

Totally agree with your above comments New Judge. The law on bad character evidence also changed in 2003, which basically made evidence of an accused’s ‘bad character’ admissible in a trial which had to be used in the Lawrence case.

[Marijn]

Fin