Editing Double jeopardy (section)

=== United Kingdom ===
{{see also|Criminal Justice Act 2003}}

==== England and Wales ====

Double jeopardy has been permitted in [[England and Wales]] in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]].

===== Pre-2003 =====

The doctrines of ''[[Peremptory plea|autrefois acquit]]'' and ''autrefois convict'' persisted as part of the [[common law]] from the time of the [[Norman conquest of England]]; they were regarded as essential elements for protection of the subject's liberty and respect for [[due process]] of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.<ref name="Benét1864p97" /> There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

* The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.<ref>Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 ss.28, 111; Supreme Court Act 1981 s.28</ref>
* A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following an appeal against conviction by a defendant.<ref>Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.7</ref>
* A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.<ref name="CPIA96">Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s.54</ref>

In ''[[Connelly v DPP]]'' [1964] AC 1254, the [[Law Lords]] ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.<ref>''Attorney-General for Gibraltar v Leoni'', Court of Appeal, 1999 (unreported); see Law Com CP No 156, para 2.24</ref>

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.<ref>''R v Thomas'' [1950] 1 KB 26</ref> By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.<ref>''R v Beedie'' [1998] QB 356, Dingwall, 2000</ref>

===== Post-2003 =====

Following the [[murder of Stephen Lawrence]], the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be [[Repeal|abrogated]] in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The [[Law Commission]] later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the [[criminal justice system]] by [[Robin Auld|Lord Justice Auld]], a past [[Senior Presiding Judge]] for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."<ref>{{cite web|title=A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld |url=http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090607141016/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=7 June 2009 |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=September 2001 }}</ref> 1999 was also the year of a highly publicised case in which a man, [[David Smith (murderer)|David Smith]], was convicted of the murder of a [[prostitute]] after having been acquitted of the "almost identical"<ref name="BBC1999">{{cite news |title=Prostitute murderer gets life |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/552350.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref> murder of sex worker Sarah Crump six years previously.<ref name="BBC2">{{cite news |title=Killer beat earlier murder charge |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/556081.stm |access-date=20 April 2022 |publisher=BBC News |date=8 December 1999}}</ref><ref name="BBC1999"/><ref name="Herald">{{cite news |title=Police probe killer sadist Life for lorry driver who was cleared of carbon-copy murder of prostitute in 1993 |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12203896.police-probe-killer-sadist-life-for-lorry-driver-who-was-cleared-of-carbon-copy-murder-of-prostitute-in-1993/ |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=HeraldScotland |date=9 December 1999}}</ref> Because of the double jeopardy laws that existed at the time, Smith could not be re-tried for Crump's murder, despite police insisting they were not looking for anybody else and that the case was closed.<ref name="Telegraph">{{cite news |last1=Hope |first1=Christopher |title=David Smith's size 14 feet could link him to three more murders |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3525337/David-Smiths-size-14-feet-could-link-him-to-three-more-murders.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=The Telegraph |date=28 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Widdup |first1=Ellen |title='Bigfoot' print may link killer to vice girl deaths |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/bigfoot-print-may-link-killer-to-vice-girl-deaths-6831350.html |access-date=20 April 2022 |work=Evening Standard|location=London |date=13 April 2012}}</ref><ref name="BBC2"/><ref name="BBC1999"/>{{efn|Following the 2003 reforms, Smith's acquittal for murdering Crump was overturned in 2023 and he was tried and convicted.<ref>{{cite news |title=Ripper-style killer found guilty of Southall sex worker murder 30 years after being cleared of crime |url=https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-05-24/ripper-style-killer-guilty-of-murder-30-years-after-being-cleared-of-crime |access-date=24 May 2023 |work=ITV News |date=24 May 2023}}</ref>}}

Both [[Jack Straw]] (then [[Home Secretary]]) and [[William Hague]] (then [[Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)|Leader of the Opposition]]) favoured the measures suggested by the Auld Report.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1373237/Straw-moves-to-scrap-Magna-Carta-double-jeopardy-law.html |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Straw moves to scrap Magna Carta double jeopardy law |date=5 November 2000|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=13 October 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref> These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Broadbridge |first=Sally |title=Research paper 02/74: The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals |url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |publisher=UK parliament |access-date=5 January 2012 |date=2 December 2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf |archive-date=20 November 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/part/10/enacted |title=Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) Part 10: Retrial for serious offences |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office |date=20 November 2003 |access-date=5 June 2014 }}</ref> and this provision came into force in April 2005.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4406129.stm Double jeopardy law ushered out], BBC News. 3 April 2005</ref> It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, [[manslaughter]], [[kidnapping]], [[rape]], [[robbery|armed robbery]], and serious [[Drug-related crime|drug crimes]]) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the [[retrial]] must be approved by the [[Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales)|Director of Public Prosecutions]], and the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080915092707/http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_j.html Retrial of Serious Offences]. The CPS. Retrieved on 2 January 2012.</ref> Then Director of Public Prosecutions, [[Ken Macdonald]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]], said that he expected no more than a handful of cases to be brought in a year.<ref name="ming"/>

Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, Billy Dunlop, was initially acquitted and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.<ref name="ming">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5150346.stm Murder conviction is legal first], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of [[perjury]], but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal, in November 2005, for permission for a new trial, which was granted.<ref name="ming" /><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4426038.stm Man faces double jeopardy retrial], BBC News. 10 November 2005</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5333230.stm The law of 'double jeopardy'], BBC News. 11 September 2006</ref> Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/5412264.stm Double jeopardy man is given life], BBC News. 6 October 2006</ref>

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at [[Ascott-under-Wychwood]] on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery in 2009 of compelling new evidence (Thompson's blood on Weston's boots) he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-11982681 |title='Double jeopardy' man guilty of Vikki Thompson murder |date=13 December 2010 |publisher=BBC News Oxford |access-date=13 December 2010 }}</ref>

In December 2018, convicted paedophile [[Russell Bishop (murderer)|Russell Bishop]] was also retried and found guilty by a jury for the [[Babes in the Wood murders (Wild Park)|Babes in the Wood murders]] of two 9-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986. At the original trial in 1987, a key piece of the prosecution's case rested on the recovery of a discarded blue sweatshirt. Under questioning, Bishop denied that the sweatshirt belonged to him, but his girlfriend, Jennifer Johnson, alleged the clothing was Bishop's, before she changed her story in the trial, telling the jury she had never seen the top before.<ref name="Bishop">{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/russell-bishop-guilty-babes-wood-murders/ |archive-date=12 January 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Babes in the Wood murders: after the police blunders and killer's deceit, how justice caught up with Russell Bishop, 32 years on|last1=Evans|first1=Martin|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Telegraph|access-date=10 December 2018|last2=Sawer|first2=Patrick|issn=0307-1235}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Attributed to a series of blunders in the prosecution's case, Bishop was acquitted by the jury after two hours of deliberations.<ref name="Bishop"/> Three years later, Bishop was found guilty of the abduction, molestation, and attempted murder of a 7-year-old girl in February 1990.<ref name="Quinn"/> In 2014, re-examined by modern forensics, the sweatshirt contained traces of Bishop's DNA, and also had fibres on it from both of the girls' clothing.<ref name="Quinn"/> Tapings taken from Karen Hadaway's arm also yielded traces of Bishop's DNA.<ref name="Quinn">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/man-found-guilty-of-1986-brighton-babes-in-the-wood-murders-karen-hadaway-nicola-fellows|title=Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton 'babes in the wood' murders|last=Quinn|first=Ben|date=10 December 2018|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|access-date=10 December 2018|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> At the 2018 trial, a jury of seven men and five women returned a guilty verdict after two-and-a-half hours of deliberation.<ref name="Bishop"/><ref name="Quinn"/>

On 14 November 2019, [[Michael Weir (murderer)|Michael Weir]] became the first person to be twice found guilty of a murder. He was originally convicted of the murder of Leonard Harris in 1999, but the conviction was quashed in 2000 by the Court of Appeal on a technicality. In 2018, new [[DNA profiling#England and Wales|DNA evidence]] had been obtained and palm prints from both murder scenes were matched to Weir. Twenty years after the original conviction, Weir was convicted of the murder for a second time.<ref name="Weir">{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50418212 |title=Michael Weir guilty of 1998 'double jeopardy' murders |date=14 November 2019 |publisher=BBC News |access-date=14 November 2019 }}</ref>

In February 2020, [[Merseyside Police]] called for further reform to the double jeopardy law in England so as to allow previously acquitted suspects to be re-interviewed by police.<ref name="reform needed">{{cite news |title=Whiston boys' murders: 'Double jeopardy reform needed' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-51551471 |access-date=9 July 2023 |publisher=BBC News |date=18 February 2020}}</ref> The force had wanted to re-interview a suspect in the unsolved case of the [[murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller]] who had been acquitted of the crime in 1981, but were not permitted to do so.<ref name="ITVGreenwood">{{cite news |title=Families still seeking justice for two boys murdered nearly 40-years-ago |url=https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2020-02-18/families-still-seeking-justice-for-two-boys-murdered-nearly-40-years-ago |access-date=9 July 2023 |work=ITV News |date=18 February 2020}}</ref> The force had also not been allowed to re-charge the man of murder in 2019, causing them to publicly request that the law be changed and stating: "We believe being able to re-question suspects could potentially lead to being able to demonstrate the new and compelling evidence needed to reopen particular cases, including the murders of John Greenwood and Gary Miller".<ref name="reform needed" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Whiston boys' 1980 murder: Police investigation 'lacked thoroughness' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-48220446 |access-date=9 July 2023 |publisher=BBC News |date=10 May 2019}}</ref>

==== Scotland ====

The double jeopardy rule no longer applies absolutely in [[Scotland]] since the [[Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011]] came into force on 28 November 2011. The Act introduced three broad exceptions to the rule: where the acquittal had been tainted by an attempt to pervert the course of justice; where the accused admitted their guilt after acquittal; and where there was new evidence.<ref>[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/16 "Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011"] legislation.gov.uk retrieved 6 January 2012.</ref>

==== Northern Ireland ====

In [[Northern Ireland]], the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]], effective 18 April 2005,<ref>[http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 "Commencement of Provisions – Criminal Justice Act of 2003,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928112743/http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=11277 |date=28 September 2011 }} Northern Ireland Office.</ref> makes certain "qualifying offence" (including murder, rape, kidnapping, specified sexual acts with young children, specified drug offences, defined acts of terrorism, as well as in certain cases attempts or conspiracies to commit the foregoing)<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 Schedule 5 Part 2] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702233813/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_32#sch5 |date=2 July 2010 }} of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref> subject to retrial after acquittal (including acquittals obtained before passage of the Act) if there is a finding by the Court of Appeal that there is "new and compelling evidence".<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 "Retrial for serious offences,"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123041757/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030044_en_10#pt10 |date=23 January 2010 }} Part 10 of Criminal Justice Act of 2003.</ref>