Pros And Cons Of The Double Jeopardy

1292 Words6 Pages


The rule of double jeopardy stands different within each individual state throughout Australia. Dating back in common law to the sixteenth century, the basic guideline to double jeopardy prohibits abuse of process through disallowing prosecution for the same or substantially similar offences in a case after an acquittal. (Austlii [1], 2016) However, case of R v Carroll, held in the High Court, initiated a law reform throughout parts of Australia, addressing the idea of different charges being laid against the same action to avoid the literal rule of double jeopardy, yet ensure justice be resolved within doubted acquittals. (FindLaw, 2016)

In the case of Raymond Carroll, his original trial was heard …show more content…

In effect to bypass this rule, Carroll was charged by the DPP with perjury by the claim that he had lied under oath, giving testimony in his murder trial that he did not kill Deirdre Kennedy when evidence proved otherwise. Great dispute arouse from these newfound charges, as the defense made application that the charges executed abuse of process. The Justice Muir denied this accusation, as the perjury charges where based upon different evidence used within the murder trail, therefore withholding breach of double jeopardy. However, the case was then appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal in which the original conviction was overridden due to the establishment of abuse of process committed by breach of the concept of the double jeopardy rule. The trial was appealed once more to the High Court, where the judge administrated that on the basis of abuse of process if Carroll were to be convicted of perjury it would overturn the acquittal for murder and therefore be inconsistent with the double jeopardy rule. (Burton Kelly, …show more content…

While the long lasting legal disputes had come to a close, the public riot that resulted from the case instigated a rule reform. The Council of Australian Government proposed new laws nation wide regarding the guidelines of double jeopardy, which only two jurisdictions, Victoria and ACT, refused to sign. (ABC News, 2016) South Australian’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 was altered in 2013 to allow second and further appeals against convictions and sentences. The bill enabling to do so also placed limitations upon double jeopardy, allowing DNA evidence to bypass the rule of double jeopardy and be taken into consideration. (Kellie Toole,

Open Document