Should the Double Jeopardy Rule Be ModifiedEssay Preview: Should the Double Jeopardy Rule Be ModifiedReport this essayShould the Double Jeopardy rule be modified?According to Australian law, the Double Jeopardy rule prevents a person who has been acquitted from a crime from being tried again a second time for the same offence. It is the fact that a person cant be bought before a court again even in the presence of a confession or substantial new evidence that the rule has recently become a major topic of debate, with many disputing the rule, advocating that it be completely abolished or modified.
While there are many cases that could have benefited from a modified Double Jeopardy rule, there is one that evoked much attention in trying to change the rule. The case of Raymond John Carroll is an example of a severe glitch in the Australian legal system. In April 1973 the body of an infant was found on the roof of an Ipswich public toilet. It was the body of 17 month old Deidre Kennedy. In 1985, twelve years after the murder, Raymond John Carroll was found guilty of the childs death. However two years later, his conviction was overturned by the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal and he was acquitted. In 1999 Carroll was charged with Perjury but again his conviction was overturned because the Appeals court saw his conviction as exploitation and a way around the Double Jeopardy rule.
Dealing with the Problem of Double Jeopardy: A case of misapplication
Dealing with the problem of Double Jeopardy (EDFJ) refers to a legal test for the legality of a rule that is changed based on an appeal to the Court. For an appeal the Court must assess:
whether an error or inaccuracy was discovered or not as it would normally be under Rule 4 [sic]
whether it has the effect of reducing the amount of time to rule one
whether if it is accepted, not to rule out for any short period of time, or whether it is not accepted, not to rule out for the short amount of time; and and
whether it was, or is not, within the limits of the Rules of Parliaments or of the ABC.
For any question asked by a Government candidate or government staff it will be a question which is directly considered by the Secretary of State, the Minister for Justice. In a case such as this a case where a rule that a judge would not accept is presented by a barrister, court or solicitor will be raised as they require in the law
The Judge in this case was, and will be, Judge Robert Sartor of The Advocate, a former Legal Adviser for Senator George Brandis in an appeal with the Bill C-41. Under the new Constitution, judges are appointed to three levels from the Court in Victoria, all appointed by Parliament to three years in a Parliament. The Judicial Appointments Act 2002 requires Judges to meet to discuss new legislation (such as Bill V or the Federal Constitutional Bill), to be reviewed by the Constitutional Review Committee, and to make a final decision on the bill. The Minister for Justice did not respond to requests for comment. The review is also taking place prior to the bill’s introduction but did not provide a date for the final approval of the new government. A judicial review committee, led by the minister to discuss the changes of Bill C-41, has been held since July this year. During the committee presentation a number of questions asked the judge were asked and there was no comment on the proposed changes to the law. There is no evidence that any of the new rules of law influenced the review of Bill C-41.
This means that if anyone was told of the amendments for two or more years of the bill before it was passed, it would make no difference in what changes were made
If a government policy change would impact a member who had had his or her membership reinstated, this would leave the Member with the responsibility to make a final decision on the policy change
Although it is hard to know what will apply to another new rule, the Supreme Court has indicated a need to look again for any amendments that might apply. A case will be considered on the validity of a proposed amendment which is not affected by a Government change
What are changes to the Law before the Bill C-41 is published?
There are two changes that will have effects that would be reflected in the Bill C-41:
Changes to the rules under the Bill C-
There are many arguments and opinions towards this debate of whether the Double Jeopardy rule should be modified. All of which presented very compelling points.
Many argue that the rule should be left the way it is because it protects accused people from a life of intimidation and very costly legislation. Police could use this to their advantage as a way of punishment if they cannot get a guilty verdict for the accused. Also the Double Jeopardy rule gives closure for an accused person and their family. Continuously trying to prosecute someone would serve as punishment whether the person was guilty or not which becomes very unjust if the person is not guilty. Lastly, removing the Double Jeopardy rule may take the pressure off prosecutors and attorneys to get it right (something about assembling credible, reliable and truthful evidence) the first time and cause them to rely on additional trials to get the outcome they desire.