Reply
Tue 15 Nov, 2005 04:04 am
This law means that if you are wrongly charged with murder and have to suffer 18 months of uncertainty, but are acquited, you walk away from court knowing that ten or twenty years from they can come back for another bite of the cherry.
This cant be right, it means that an acquital means nothing.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1640297,00.html
Yep, this is the country that wont let you watch sex til your 18 but you can have sex when your 16!!
It does have some sort of filter in it though - from the article -
Quote:Under the new law, the court of appeal has the power to quash an acquittal and order a re-trial where there is new and compelling evidence to the guilt of the acquitted person and it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Those are pretty high hurdles. And when you think about it, if the jury isn't impressed they will boot it out anyway.
I wouldn't worry too much. As far as I understand it, the case has to be reviewed by the Director of public prosecutions (THE boss) and, if he/she deems it worthy of further trial, it is then sent to a Court of Appeal, to be reviewed by judges.
There has to be some major new evidence/advance in forensics for it to be considered worthy of a retrial.
I know how I would feel, if I was a close relative of a murder victim, who had seen the accused be acquitted on either a technicality or lack of evidence because the forensics weren't sophisticated enough to clinch a conviction.
With the advances in DNA detection over the past ten or so years, there are quite a few "acquitted" people who are probably quaking in their boots.
As long as this new procedure isn't abused, it is a good thing, IMO.
I don't see the problem, either. If an error has been make, fix it. Likewise, if new evidence establishes a party's innocence, again, fix the mistake - to the extent it can be fixed, of course.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace