Editing Double jeopardy (section)

=== Australia ===

In contrast to other common law nations, Australian double jeopardy law has been held to further prevent the prosecution for [[perjury]] following a previous acquittal where a finding of perjury would controvert the acquittal. This was confirmed in the case of ''[[R v Carroll]]'', where the police found new evidence convincingly disproving Carroll's sworn [[alibi]] two decades after he had been acquitted of murder charges in the death of [[Ipswich, Queensland|Ipswich]] child Deidre Kennedy, and successfully prosecuted him for perjury. Public outcry following the overturn of his conviction (for perjury) by the [[High Court of Australia|High Court]] has led to widespread calls for reform of the law along the lines of the England and Wales legislation.

During a [[COAG|Council of Australian Governments (COAG)]] meeting of 2007, model legislation to rework double jeopardy laws was drafted,<ref name="premier.vic.gov.au">{{cite web|title=Coalition Government to introduce double jeopardy reforms|url=http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2427-coalition-government-to-introduce-double-jeopardy-reforms.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120322221443/http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2427-coalition-government-to-introduce-double-jeopardy-reforms.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 March 2012|work=Victoria's double jeopardy laws to be reworked|access-date=4 February 2012}}</ref> but there was no formal agreement for each state to introduce it. All states have now chosen to introduce legislation that mirrors COAG's recommendations on "fresh and compelling" evidence.

In [[New South Wales]], retrials of serious cases with a minimum sentence of 20 years or more are now possible even if the original trial preceded the 2006 reform.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1735450.htm|title=NSW seeks to scrap double jeopardy principle|newspaper=The World Today|author=Duffy, Conor|date=7 September 2006}}</ref> On 17 October 2006, the [[New South Wales Parliament]] passed legislation abolishing the rule against double jeopardy in cases where:

* an acquittal of a "life sentence offence" ([[murder]], violent [[gang rape]], large commercial supply or production of [[illegal drug trade|illegal drugs]]) is debunked by "fresh and compelling" evidence of guilt;
* an acquittal of a "15 years or more sentence offence" was tainted (by perjury, [[bribery]], or perversion of the course of justice).

On 30 July 2008, [[South Australia]] also introduced legislation to scrap parts of its double jeopardy law, legalising retrials for serious offences with "fresh and compelling" evidence, or if the acquittal was tainted.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Law Consolidation (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2008|url=http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2008/CRIMINAL%20LAW%20CONSOLIDATION%20(DOUBLE%20JEOPARDY)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202008_28/2008.28.UN.RTF|access-date=16 October 2011|archive-date=11 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111185135/http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2008/CRIMINAL%20LAW%20CONSOLIDATION%20(DOUBLE%20JEOPARDY)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202008_28/2008.28.UN.RTF|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In [[Western Australia]], amendments introduced on 8 September 2011 allow retrial if "new and compelling" evidence is found. It applies to serious offences where the penalty is life imprisonment or imprisonment for 14 years or more. Acquittal because of tainting ([[witness intimidation]], [[jury tampering]], or perjury) also permits retrial.<ref>{{cite web|title=Attorney General Christian Porter welcomes double jeopardy law reform|date=8 September 2011|url=http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/attorney-general-christian-porter-welcomes-double-jeopardy-law-reform/story-e6frg13u-1226132121880|access-date=16 October 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=WA the next state to axe double jeopardy|url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wa-the-next-state-to-axe-double-jeopardy-20110908-1jyu3.html|access-date=16 October 2011|date=8 September 2011}}</ref>

In [[Tasmania]], on 19 August 2008, amendments were introduced to allow retrial in serious cases if there is "fresh and compelling" evidence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Double Jeopardy Law Reform |url=http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=24539 |publisher=Tasmanian Government Media Releases |access-date=16 October 2011 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

In [[Victoria (state)|Victoria]] on 21 December 2011, legislation was passed allowing new trials where there is "fresh and compelling DNA evidence, where the person acquitted subsequently admits to the crime, or where it becomes clear that key witnesses have given false evidence".<ref name="premier.vic.gov.au"/> However, retrial applications could only be made for serious offences such as murder, manslaughter, arson causing death, serious drug offences and aggravated forms of rape and armed robbery.<ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Procedure Amendment (Double Jeopardy and Other Matters) Bill 2011|url=http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/publications/research-papers/bills-backgrounders/8100-criminal-procedure-amendment-double-jeopardy-and-other-matters-bill-2011}}</ref>

In [[Queensland]] on 18 October 2007, the double jeopardy laws were modified to allow a retrial where fresh and compelling evidence becomes available after an acquittal for murder or a "tainted acquittal" for a crime carrying a 25-year or more sentence. A "tainted acquittal" requires a conviction for an administration of justice offence, such as perjury, that led to the original acquittal.<ref>{{cite web | title = Criminal Code Act 1899 – Queensland Legislation – Queensland Government | url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1899-009#sch.1-pt.8-ch.68}}</ref>