Double Jeopardy Research Paper

775 Words4 Pages
The law on double jeopardy has a 1“legal heritage of 800 years”. It has been under criticism in recent years as guilty criminals can get away with crimes from a technicality in the justice system. This law stops the retrial of accused criminals who in their trials were proven guilty. I personally disagree with the current double jeopardy laws and believe that changes need to be implemented in the current law to make them more just.

The case of Raymond John Carroll is spread over decades and as it developed more witnesses came forward and better technology also developed. Carroll was accused of the murder of baby Deidre Kennedy. The trial started on the 18th of February 1985, he was found guilty by a jury 's verdict. Carroll appealed the verdict and was acquitted of the crime as the court of appeal found the forensic evidence couldn’t be relied upon as it caused a reasonable doubt. The prosecution also had no evidence to disprove that Carroll was not in Ipswich. Furthermore the court
…show more content…
In 1999 the Queensland police retried Carroll on Perjury and once again the jury found Carroll guilty. They had substantial new evidence with more witnessed and developments in forensic technology. Once again Carroll appealed and was acquitted as the high courts found it “abuse of process” as they were trying to get around the double jeopardy laws.

The Law of double jeopardy is meant to stop people who have been tried once for a crime not to be tried again for the same crime. It 2“prevents prosecutors from repeatedly bringing charges against a defendant in hopes of eventually getting a guilty verdict” .This gives the accused once acquitted or found innocent a sense of security as they can move on with their lives without worrying about being retried. The principles of double jeopardy and the law still being used do have
Open Document