Britain to curb famous legal rule [elimination of prohibition against "double jeopardy"]

Houston Chronicle ^ | November 21, 2003 | ED JOHNSON

[John Jorsett]

LONDON -- The British Parliament on Thursday approved legislation to overturn "double jeopardy" protection for offenses such as murder, rape and armed robbery.

The centuries-old legal rule prevents suspects being tried twice for a crime and is enshrined in the legal codes of many of Britain's former colonies, including the United States.

But under the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced by Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, a person acquitted of certain serious offenses will face a second trial if compelling new details, such as DNA evidence, come to light.

The legislation, hailed by the government as the biggest reform of Britain's criminal justice system in a generation, now only needs royal assent, which is virtually automatic, before it becomes law.

Blair's government presented the legislation last year, but its progress through Parliament has been turbulent, largely due to clauses curbing the right to trial by jury. The House of Lords, Parliament's upper chamber, which has the power to amend and delay legislation, opposed those clauses and repeatedly blocked the bill.

After intense talks Thursday, the Lords backed government plans for judge-only trials in cases where there is a danger a jury could be intimidated. The government in return agreed to put shelve its plans to scrap juries in complex fraud cases.

The government Thursday also prevailed on plans to overhaul Britain's much-criticized National Health Service.

Blair, who has made reforming the state-funded health care system a priority for his second term in office, wants to grant Britain's leading hospitals greater independence and allow them to make their own management and spending decisions.

But his proposals to create so-called foundation hospitals have encountered fierce opposition from lawmakers, many in his governing Labor Party, who see them as the first step toward privatization.

The Commons narrowly approved the proposal Wednesday, although 62 Labor lawmakers rebelled. On Thursday, the Lords dropped their opposition to the plans and the legislation now only needs royal assent before it becomes law.

[John Jorsett]

The degradation of rights in the UK is chilling. This is why it's important to have a Bill of Rights. Unless they're enumerated, those in power will feel free to pass whatever arbitrary laws they feel like.

[Mr. Bird]

Sadly, the U.S. Federal Government violates the prohibition of double jeopardy prosecutions every time it retries a case on the grounds of "civil rights violations". What is murder if not a violation of the civil right to remain alive?

Same with the police brutality cases (Rodney King for example). Criminal statutes at the state and local levels are essentially laws against violating a person's civil rights to life, property, etc. Federal prosecution of acquitted defendants for the same act (regardless of its name) is abominable.

[Little Pig]

I may be missing something, but AFAIK if compelling new evidence surfaces in a case, you can have a new trial without worrying about "Double Jeopardy". It's only DJ of you have a new trial with the same evidence.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Sadly, the U.S. Federal Government violates the prohibition of double jeopardy prosecutions every time it retries a case on the grounds of "civil rights violations". What is murder if not a violation of the civil right to remain alive?

Not just this, but "different sovereigns" aren't considered for double jeopardy purposes. So you can get tried in state court for one crime, and then get tried in federal court for the exact same crime, assuming there is a federal law against the crime, which there usually is. Moreover, see the sniper case, each state can get a bite at the apple. The double jeopardy clause in the United States is largely just a paper tiger, not altogether much different than the rest of the Constitution, frankly.

[Mr. Bird]

I agree, but the sniper case isn't the same. Each state would be seeking to prosecute separate, individual crimes in their jurisdiction. Maryland isn't seeking to prosecute for actions taken in VA.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yes, that's true, but as I understand it, other states were attempting to pursue conspiracy charges against the duo. I think now that what's his name got put in prison that the other states won't waste their money, but I might be wrong...The conspiracy charges, of course, would be the same crime.

[aomagrat]

First they took the guns, now they are taking the rights.

[Viva Le Dissention]

I say "attempting." I ought to have said "expressed some interest in," or something such.

[SpinyNorman]

More great news for innocent British homeowners simply trying to defend themselves from thugs and home invaders.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[John Jorsett]

may be missing something, but AFAIK if compelling new evidence surfaces in a case, you can have a new trial without worrying about "Double Jeopardy".

Amendment 5 of the U.S. constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is a restriction on the power of the state to try you again for the same crime. If the accused (and presumably convicted) person comes up with exculpatory evidence, then the case can be reopened.

[Little Pig]

So if the killer of my daughter is tried and acquitted for lack of evidence because they can't find the body, and later the body is found, I'm SOL?

[Mr. Lucky]

That's why it's important to have a bill of rights.

So that Congress may make no law limiting the free exercise of religion or so that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

[sphinx]

A couple of decades ago, I'd have said this was terrible. My first thought now, however, is that at least this is an elected Parliament changing Britain's (unwritten) constitution, rather than a judicial diktat as has become our practice.

[William Tell]

John Jorsett said: "After intense talks Thursday, the Lords backed government plans for judge-only trials in cases where there is a danger a jury could be intimidated. "

First the Brits outlaw firearms. Then they must eliminate trial by jury because the armed defendants make credible threats to harm the juries.

Next, we will see an increase in assassinated judges. The solution to this, of course, will be elimination of bail and secret trials.

These are the unintended consequences of disarming the law-abiding.