Double jeopardy is a legal term that doesn’t have an exact legal definition in Australia, but is more an expression that is used to describe being punished for the same crime twice. In Australia, there is some legislation that prevents double jeopardy in some areas.
There are grey areas that need to be explained in real-life cases to be understood. In South Australian, for example, there is a piece of legislation that states:
Where any act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more Acts, or both under an Act or Acts and at common law, the offender will, unless the contrary intention appears, be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those Acts or at common law, but is not liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
A man by the name of Douglas Wallace Pearce was convicted on separate counts of a) maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do the victim grievous bodily harm, as well as b) breaking and entering the house of the victim and, while inside, inflicting grievous bodily harm on the victim. Pearce was found guilty on both counts, being sentenced to the same term twice, with both sentences served concurrently.
After a High Court appeal, the judges concluded that Pearce was punished twice for one act, besides the concurrent sentence, and said while it would be wrong to punish the offender twice for the elements that are common in the crimes, but that the punishment should reflect what the offender has done.
One of the main problems with double jeopardy arises when new evidence comes to the fore, after a trial has already occurred and a person either been set free or punished according to the information prosecutors had at the time. A new charge might be brought up against the person for a different element of the same crime.
The 1973 death of a toddler triggered changes to Australia’s double jeopardy laws. Deirdre Kennedy was taken from her bed, bashed, sexually assaulted, strangled, and then left on the roof of a public toilet block in a park. Raymond John Carroll was convicted of her death 12 years later, partially due to evidence related to a bite mark on Deirdre’s leg.
Carroll was then set free after an appeal left him acquitted. More evidence was later found that proved Carroll did it, but he could not be tried for the same crime again because of the double jeopardy rule. He was then charged with perjury, and he was found guilty, however the High Court eventually threw the case out as an abuse of process. The perjury charge proved that Carroll had murdered Deirdre, however it contradicted his acquittal.
Naturally this upset a lot of people, with plans eventually released to change the law and water down the double jeopardy laws across Australia in 2007. Victoria and ACT refused to sign. The ACT has since made exceptions to the law, with new changes allowing for a case to be retried if the offence would draw life in prison, but only if fresh and compelling evidence comes to light. The law is not retrospective. Queensland, however, named the new law Deirdre’s Law.
Write your own story. Call Vanessa Ash and Associates today.