Charged twice for the same crime: the UK’s history with double jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a defense that prevents someone from being tried more than once for the same offence. The rule has been present for over 800 years, stemming from a concept found in Roman civil law where punishment could not be meted out twice for the same action. Once the accused was acquitted of a crime, even the emergence of new evidence or a confession could not lead to a re-trial. However, this was changed in 2003 to allow a more nuanced process, enabling an accused person to potentially be put on trial twice for the same crime. This article aims to explore how this concept has evolved over time, and the various cases that have influenced its evolution.
Double jeopardy was overturned by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, which allowed English, Northern Irish, and Welsh jurisdictions to re-investigate an individual who has previously been acquitted of a charge. The provision was brought into force in 2005, allowing re-trials for 30 serious offenses, including murder and rape. In order to have a retrial, “new and compelling” evidence must be presented and approved by a director of public prosecutions. The acquittal must then be overturned by a court of appeal, thus enabling the retrial to begin.
Two main cases prompted the revision of double jeopardy in this case. The first one involved the 1989 murder of Julie Hogg, whose former boyfriend, Billy Dunlop, was tried on two separate occasions and acquitted after the jury failed to reach a verdict both times. He confessed to a police officer in 1996 that he had killed her, but could only be charged with perjury with double jeopardy still in place. Hogg’s mother, Ann Ming, campaigned persistently to change the law and allow Dunlop to be prosecuted again. He later became the first person to be retried for the same offense in 2006, receiving a life sentence for Hogg’s murder.
The second case involved the racially-motivated killing of teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993. He was assaulted at a bus stop by a gang of white youths, with no evidence suggesting the attack had been provoked in any way. Despite suspects being identified almost immediately, government prosecutors repeatedly dropped the case due to insufficient evidence. An attempt by Lawrence’s family to privately prosecute three suspects in 1996 — Neil Acourt, Gary Dobson and Luke Knight — resulted in their acquittal. An inquiry ordered by then-Home Secretary Jack Straw led to the Macpherson Report in 1999, which accused the police of institutional racism and corruption and recommended the double jeopardy provision be revised. Lawrence’s family also lobbied extensively for justice to be meted out to his killers.
Part of the reason why the Stephen Lawrence case became so pivotal in the decision to remove double jeopardy came down to public opinion. In fact, in 1997, the Daily Mail used its front page to name five suspects — Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt, Dobson, Knight, and David Norris — and invited them to sue if they were wrong. None of the suspects ever took legal action. A 1998 inquiry also led them to subsequently be pelted with bottles by protestors. As such, the Lawrence family’s efforts fuelled the fight for double jeopardy to be removed.
At the time of the proposal, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association released a joint statement opposing the removal of double jeopardy: they said a “real risk of harassment” by the media could rob legal procedures from “finality”, and the cases most likely to receive a retrial would have been highly-publicised prior to renewed proceedings, thus making it impossible to have a fair and impartial trial. Commentators in contemporary newspapers were also critical, pointing out it would not tackle the issue of prosecutorial incompetencies in cases, as they may simply seek a retrial. The ambiguity over what constitutes new evidence was also highlighted, which was another gateway to the state’s abuse of its legal power. The Observer, in particular, asserted that closure for Stephen Lawrence’s family alone was not sufficient to overturn 800 years’ worth of legislation.
In 2011, the Court of Appeal decided there was sufficient new and compelling evidence to allow a retrial for Lawrence’s murder, including suspects’ DNA being found on Lawrence’s clothes. Two suspects, David Norris and Dobson, both received life sentences after a guilty verdict pronounced in January 2012.
Despite criticism that this may allow for abuses of legal power, the number of retrials have been remarkably limited. The most recent case involves an incident dubbed the “Babes of the Wood” murders, which occurred in 1986. New DNA evidence linked suspect Russell Bishop to a blue sweatshirt found at the crime scene, providing incontrovertible proof of his presence. He was eventually convicted in 2018, receiving two life sentences for the murders of Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway. Afterwards, the Fellows family described their relief that other children were safe “from the hands of Russell Bishop”. Similar remarks have been made by Julie Hogg’s family after their daughter’s murderer was convicted.
While substantial objections were raised for the abolition of double jeopardy, the enforcement of what constitutes “new and compelling evidence” has been stringent, and retrials have been adequately justified. It also allows the families of victims to achieve a sense of finality, now that justice has been meted out. Perhaps Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence, says it best: “It is never too late to give a mother justice for the murder of her son. I never will [give up getting it].”
Bibliography:
Buckland, W., 1963. A text-book of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Broadbridge, S., 2002. The Criminal Justice Bill: Double jeopardy and prosecution appeals. [online] House of Commons, pp.32–33. Available at: <https://web.archive.org/web/20061120235713/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-074.pdf> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
Quinn, B., 2019. Macpherson report: what was it and what impact did it have?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/22/macpherson-report-what-was-it-and-what-impact-did-it-have> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
Cps.gov.uk. 2021. Ex-girlfriend of Russell Bishop convicted of perverting course of justice | The Crown Prosecution Service. [online] Available at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/south-east/news/ex-girlfriend-russell-bishop-convicted-perverting-course-justice> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
Quinn, B., 2018. Man found guilty of 1986 Brighton ‘babes in the wood’ murders. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/10/man-found-guilty-of-1986-brighton-babes-in-the-wood-murders-karen-hadaway-nicola-fellows> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
Taylor, M., 2006. Justice at last: killer pleads guilty in Britain’s first double jeopardy trial. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/12/ukcrime.topstories3> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
Bowcott, O., 2011. Stephen Lawrence murder retrial due to double jeopardy repeal. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/18/double-jeopardy-stephen-lawrence-suspect> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
BBC News. 2018. Stephen Lawrence murder: A timeline of how the story unfolded. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26465916> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
BBC News. 2020. Stephen Lawrence racist murder: ‘The Met might give up, I never will’. [online] Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53722540> [Accessed 5 July 2021].
