Double Jeopardy In Australia

Double jeopardy, a legal anachronism in the twenty first century in Australia? Double jeopardy is a law under which Queensland still governs in order to protect the defendant of a crime they have already committed. With double jeopardy laws being created so long ago there has been much speculation on the effect of this protection law ever since, as it allows a once defendant, found guilty, who has been sentenced to jail time to never step foot in a court again no matter what new evidence comes to light that may enhance their prison length. With Queensland becoming (do research on qld to find if first or not) the last state to overhaul it double jeopardy laws, evaluating these law changes to Queensland's new double jeopardy laws will investigate

whether the proposed overhaul of Queensland double jeopardy laws would revitalise emergency services and rebalance the scales of justice back in the favour of the victim and not the offender.

Double jeopardy, legally know as Autrefois Acquit (previously acquitted) or Autrefois Convict, is the ancient common law legal principle that no person can be tried for the same alleged crime twice.

Double jeopardy law which is an 800 year old legal principle, was introduced to Australia in 1789 under the criminal code; during this time and to modern day, double jeopardy laws would prevent a repeat prosecution for someone acquitted in a criminal trial by either the jury, the judge or appeal court judges. During the modern 21st there have been many breakthroughs in scientific DNA testing and increased crime solving abilities this allows for cases that have been gone to trial, and seen offenders sentenced only on the minimal evidence that was available, however if strong new evidence is brought to light that may indicate a further conviction it cannot be handed down due to the protection of double jeopardy laws. S.A. Premier Mike Rann said in 2009 “It makes no sense to me that if someone gets off a particular case and then fresh evidence becomes available, DNA or otherwise, that they should ... literally get away with

murder”.

Double Jeopardy laws have always been a part of our original criminal code which was established under the Criminal Code Act 1899 – Queensland Legislation (https://goo.gl/FhO0A6). Ever since then the Laws that surround Double Jeopardy have been very difficult and a lengthy process is involved in order to change the Double Jeopardy law, such as the same system a new bill and/or law gets passed through parliament. However throughout many legal obligations such as human right activists and many knockbacks from the acquitted, the Australian government successfully changed the widely debated Double Jeopardy law within Queensland with the help of Former Attorney General Jarrod Bleighe, through the amendment of the Criminal Code Amendment Bill of 2007. Throughout the amendment of the bill there remained two objectives it strived to achieve, (a) to enable a person acquitted of murder or a lesser offence to be retried for murder if there is fresh and compelling evidence of guilt, and (b) to enable a person acquitted of an offence to be retried for an offence for which the maximum penalty is 25 years or more if the acquittal was tainted by the commission of an administration of justice offence. In each case, a further object is to ensure that the retrial can only proceed after a hearing before the Court of Appeal has established that the grounds in paragraphs (a) or (b) above are made out, and that it will be in the interests of justice to order a retrial. (CITATION). (TOUCH ON BOTH SIDES OF ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY RELATING TO http://www.autrefoisacquit.info/#nutshell)

Double Jeopardy laws were created to enforce the law that “No man should ever have to be troubled again” (CITATION) however this law has affected many lives, some the acquitted, yet many the families of victims and fallen relatives.

The legislation that this law contributes to be seen as unfair to victims and unlawful to many as justice cannot be served accurately as defendants are protected from ever seeing a courtroom again wether fresh compelling evidence be found years later. A perfect example of justice being served from starting to break down the walls of Double Jeopardy laws is the Deidre Kennedy case. Deirdre Kennedy was only just a baby, whose body was found on the roof of a toilet block In Ipswich, Queensland, in April 1973; John Raymond Carroll who was originally interviewed by Police in 1983 was charged with the murder of young, innocent baby. Proceeding with a trial in the Supreme Court in March 1985, Raymond John Carroll was found guilty by a Supreme Court jury of the murder of Deidre Kennedy (INTEXT). During the proceeding experts testified using evidence of teeth marks that appeared on the baby's legs with Carroll’s dental imprints that matched those found on the little girl. At the time of the murder in April 1973, John Raymond Carroll was age 12, he in 1985 aged 24; was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. However by November 1985, the Queensland Court of Appeal heard Carroll’s case that he was not guilty on the base that the crown could not

place him in Ipswich at the time of the murder. This lead to the Court of Appeal to uphold Carroll’s appeal and he was acquitted of the murder. The Deirdre Kennedy Case was reopened ten years later in 1995 where fresh compelling new evidence was found through the use of 21st century forensic services, these services provided enough evidence to conclusively link John Raymond Carroll to the death of Deidre Kennedy in 1973. The issue that surrounded the crown was the fact that Carroll was acquitted of the original murder trial in 1985, making Carroll by law, protected against a retrial under the 800 year old Double Jeopardy Law.

John Raymond Carroll, who became a legal representation for expressing to the nation of how much Queensland’s Legal System can fail. After being acquitted in the appeal trial of Deidre Kennedys murder in 1995 a witness finally came forward, not only verifying that Carroll was in Ipswich but at the exact place Deidre Kennedys body was found, this prompted further investigation and lifted the lid onto what was becoming a cold case. After it was evident that trailing Carroll again would be impossible the prosecution now relied on charging Carroll for perjury for initially lying under oath in court, this sentence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years (Queensland Government , 2014). During this court trial, the prosecution pushed for maximum sentencing as it was the only chance and legal opportunity left to get a charge on Carroll as he escaped murder; the Crown saw this as an abusive trial as the prosecution was pushing every possible angle to get Carroll charged with the maximum penalty. This led to one of the worst outcomes for a family due to no conviction being appointed and John Raymond Carroll was acquitted.

With Queensland to soon overhaul its double jeopardy laws, it is seen to be a win for families of victims such as the Kennedy family whose cases have never been given a fair go for killers such as John Raymond Carroll who was convicted of Deidre’s murder in 1985 but it was overturned on appeal. In 2000, a jury sent him to jail for lying about the murder but his perjury conviction was turned over by the High Court of Australia due to the trial being on abusive and biased grounds (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/murder-of-ipswich-toddler-deidre-kennedy-triggers-changes-to-queenslands-double-jeopardy-laws-over-40-years-on/story-fnihsrf2-1226901319776 ). Even with the Queensland Double Jeopardy reform in 2007 that was lobbied for nearly a decade from the Kennedy family and victims alike the laws that were changed were only retrospective, meaning that the law change did not apply to any acquittals prior to October 18, 2007. This meant that the Kennedy case could still not be brought forward to the court again, allowing for a retrial that would place John Carroll under arrest and finally bring justice towards the many relatives that were left with no closure for over 30 years. Changing Queensland’s laws to bring justice towards victims would bring many challenges towards the legal system and all cases where double jeopardy laws protected an acquittal would have to be carefully examined in order to insure a retrial would definitely result in a prior conviction and satisfy all legal aspects of the law.