Matt H Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 So we no longer have the double jeopardy clause in british law. But i was wondering what exactly does this mean in the fine print, as i'm sure there must be some legislation or strict guidance that says what has to have come about or has happened in order to re-try someone that has previously been aquited. I.e, theres no way a judicial system would say, "balls, he was found inoccent, lets have another go". If you no what i mean. So basically, what has to be the minimum in place in order to be granted a second charge against someone for a the same crime they were aquited from? The obvious is new compelling evidence or being let off on a technicality. But i'm sure i've heard stories about people who have been aquited over a technicality and walked, i.e traffic violations, and never seen the court room again. Does it have to be a certain degree of crime before a new charge is brought, or does it simply lie with a "top of the ladder" judge?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 How about if people were let off over a technicality, but then the law was changed so the technicality didn't apply?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 How about if people were let off over a technicality, but then the law was changed so the technicality didn't apply?... I dont know for sure, but i'm pretty sure changing a law isnt retrospective, otherwise half the elderly population would be up for drink driving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 With the way things seem to be going, would you be surprised?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyT Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Good thing. At the end of the day a rape victim would not have had the advantages science could provide 5 years ago. A rapist could have gotten away with the crime. Now, said rapist will have to go through the new tests etc. and incontrovertible proof can be brought against the assailant and closure can be had for the victims. Just one case of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 Good thing. At the end of the day a rape victim would not have had the advantages science could provide 5 years ago. A rapist could have gotten away with the crime. Now, said rapist will have to go through the new tests etc. and incontrovertible proof can be brought against the assailant and closure can be had for the victims. Just one case of course. On the flip side thought, an inoccent person could get dragged through another ordeal after aquital the first time round. The prosecution wanting another bite of therry because they didnt get the result they wanted the first time. There are obviously pros and cons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 "So basically, what has to be the minimum in place in order to be granted a second charge against someone for a the same crime they were aquited from?" No one have any ideas then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.