Law To Eliminate 'Double Jeopardy' That Protects Us From Endless Trials

Run_to_da_hills

The Director of Public Prosecutions is to be given new powers to seek a fresh trial The move is seen as a vital new weapon in the armoury of the prosecution,

The new powers for the DPP are included in a package of legislative measures that have now been approved by the Cabinet.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern last night announced that he had been given clearance to press ahead with the package, which, he said, contained far-reaching reforms and groundbreaking proposals. They will be contained in the Criminal Procedures Bill, which will be published early in the New Year.

The DPP will also have the power to appeal against an acquittal and seek a new trial where he believes the acquittal was due to an error in law by the trial judge.

The Bill will include another measure, announced earlier this year by the minister, to eliminate the ‘double jeopardy’ rule.

Other significant proposals include:

Reform of the law on character evidence to enable the prosecution to respond where, during the trial, unwarranted and vexatious imputations are made against the character of deceased or incapacitated victims or witnesses.

Mr Ahern said last night that the Government’s decision underlined its ambition to broaden the participation of victims in the criminal process.

“The legislation will not only give them a voice through the use of victim impact statements. It will also provide for the vigorous pursuit of justice on behalf of victims,” the minister added.

Mr Ahern said “confidence will be eroded if we do not respond to changes in society, in technology and to new patterns of crime.”

The Bill will include another measure, announced earlier this year by the minister, to eliminate the ‘double jeopardy’ rule.

Other significant proposals include:

Reform of the law on character evidence to enable the prosecution to respond where, during the trial, unwarranted and vexatious imputations are made against the character of deceased or incapacitated victims or witnesses.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dpp-gets-new--retrial-powers-if-witnesses-intimidated-1587143.html

Tom Young

So what?

By the way, OP take a look at your strapline before posting here again!

Racism in whatever form is not really tasteful.

Tom

monaghanbiffo

its not racist, its just the right thing to do!!

also your "so what" response would get a ban for anyone else

nuac

Minister's proposals seem reasonable. Nowadays all defendants are professionally represented. The lawyers who do much of the criminal work in various areas are highly skilled and explore every technicality on behalf of their clients. I see nothing wrong with closing off some of those loopholes and allowing the DPP to appeal dismisses etc.

I have seen cases where gardai do a lot of good work to solve a crime having the case thrown out over a minor procedural defect.

The scales of justice are supposed to be evenly balanced. IMHO they have been over balanced in favour of the accused.

Run_to_da_hills

Tom Young wrote: »

So what?

By the way, OP take a look at your strapline before posting here again!

Racism in whatever form is not really tasteful.

Tom

"So What", I take offense to that comment and I cannot see any racism in that post. I am very concerned about this proposed bill and what implications it can have on our civil liberties.

Someone who is up in court for road traffic or public order offense and the Garda fails to turn up or there is a "spelling error" in the summons, dose this now mean that the defendant has to take time off at his own expense, hire legal representatives again and go through all the trauma of a further sitting until all these "clerical errors" are ironed out?

Tom Young

You shouldn't take offence. My "So what" in context is that these reforms have already been implemented in EDIT: other jurisdictions. Procedurally, I do agree with you, however there can be safeguards inbuilt via legislation.

What I have a problem with is the "Boycott all ISREALI products" on your ID strapline.

PCPhoto

just curious if the DPP are allowed to remove the "double jeopardy" then....will the new law be used retrospectively for previous cases - a recent case from which originated in waterford springs to mind.

Run_to_da_hills

Tom Young wrote: »

You shouldn't take offense. My "So what" in context is that these reforms have already been implemented in our jurisdictions. Procedurally, I do agree with you, however there can be safeguards inbuilt via legislation.

What I have a problem with is the "Boycott all ISREALI products" on your ID strapline.

Nothing racist about the statement in my signature. In the days of South African apartide boycotting was on a national scale. Israel is now on a higher scale of apartide than the former South Africa.

In the six weeks that I spent in Israel / Palestine I witnessed it for myself and this was before any segregation wall was built. Israel is currently snubbing a genuine truce to enable humanitarian aid into Gaza.

monaghanbiffo

Tom Young wrote: »

You shouldn't take offence. My "So what" in context is that these reforms have already been implemented in our jurisdictions.

??? I thought i'd have noticed if one of the corner stones of our legal system had been removed.

Your "so what" comment was immature and insulting to a genuine post. Don't now try and defend it with this crap.

Happy new year!

monaghanbiffo

Also Tom Young; i notice the post was made at 4.30am this morning, if you were a little worse for wear(like most of us) and came home and posted some crap thats fair enough but trying to back up this snotty post like you are is the problem here

johnnyskeleton

nuac wrote: »

The scales of justice are supposed to be evenly balanced. IMHO they have been over balanced in favour of the accused.

Perhaps it is a matter for another thread, but why do you think this? There are a number of specific issues that could be changed, but it is always about getting a balance between the rights of the accused and having effective prosecutions. I don't believe in tipping the scales the other way for the sake of increasing the conviction rate is necessarily a good thing, as each individual issue needs to be scruitinsed balancing the above (often conflicting) principles.

This article suggests 3 proposals:

1) a right to a with prejudice appeal against an acquittal on a point of law. This is a good idea and IMO will result in a lot more cases being decided in the CCA (and of course will allow incorrectly acquitted defendants to be retried). As a practical consideration, I would imagine it would be a higher standard for the prosecution to show a mistake of law than it would be for the defence. Also, I would imagine that the level of take up for this type of appeal would be quite low.

2) abolition of double jeopardy. this is somewhat vague, and i'd want to read the bill or act to find out when exactly it would come into play e.g. is it absolutely abolished which is patently unfair, or can someone be retried if, for example, new evidence comes to light

3) as regards character evidence, while I'm not too clear on the law as it stands, my understanding is that if character attacks are made, evidence can be called to rebut these specific allegations. I'm guessing so that if character is attacked, under this proposal the proscution can either introduce good character evidence for their witnesses, or else they can introduce evidence of bad character on the part of the accused if he doesn't give evidence. I would be against this as being a bit too unfair to the accused.

johnnyskeleton

PCPhoto wrote: »

just curious if the DPP are allowed to remove the "double jeopardy" then....will the new law be used retrospectively for previous cases - a recent case from which originated in waterford springs to mind.

I very much doubt it. It is unconstitutional to enact legislation that has retrospective effect i.e. you can't be guilty of an offence that wasn't illegal at the time it was committed. Long story short, it is unfair IMO to have someone tried again when at the time of their original trial if they were acquitted that would be the end of it. I can't be certain of this, because there is an argument to be made for allowing retrials for pre-enactment acquittals and the Supreme Court's reasoning in A v. Governor of Cloverhill makes for interesting reading as regards the validity of laws etc.

dK1NG

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2) abolition of double jeopardy. this is somewhat vague, and i'd want to read the bill or act to find out when exactly it would come into play e.g. is it absolutely abolished which is patently unfair, or can someone be retried if, for example, new evidence comes to light

I'm presuming it is to be based along similar lines to the UK reforms which require fresh and compelling evidence befroe a re-trial can be ordered.