University of Limerick Institutional Repository

Evaluating the common law principle against retrials

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Coffey, Gerard
dc.date.accessioned 2015-08-26T11:19:58Z
dc.date.available 2015-08-26T11:19:58Z
dc.date.issued 2007
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10344/4598
dc.description peer-reviewed en_US
dc.description.abstract The common law principle against retrials, generally referred to as “the rule against double jeopardy,” proscribes retrials for the same criminal offence following a trial on the merits by a court of competent criminal jurisdiction concluding with an acquittal or conviction.2 This principle of the common law has recently been reformed in the United Kingdom,3 and New South Wales,4 and similar reforms have been proposed in a number of common law 1. The People v O’ Shea [1982] IR 384 (SC), at 432 per Henchy J. 2. Double jeopardy is more aptly described as a principle or maxim of the common law (as opposed to a rule of law per se) thus incorporating a multitude of substantive and procedural rules pertaining to the investigation, indictment and trial of criminal offences; see M S Kirk, “‘Jeopardy’ During the Period of the Year Books” (1934) 82 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 602, at 604. 3. Criminal Justice Act 2003, Part 10 (UK). The provisions of the 2003 Act pertaining to the reform of double jeopardy are applicable in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. 4. On 17 October 2006, the Parliament of New South Wales passed the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2006 No 69. This legislation provides for an exception to the common law principle against double jeopardy in circumstances where fresh and compelling evidence of the accused’s guilt is subsequently discovered, and also in the case of a “tainted” acquittal. jurisdictions, namely Ireland,5 Australia6 and New Zealand.7 If these proposed reforms are implemented in Ireland, provision would be made for an exception to the principle against double jeopardy where fresh and compelling evidence of the accused’s guilt is discovered following an acquittal.8 This article presents an evaluation of the policy considerations for the retention of the common law principle against double jeopardy as a complete bar against retrials, and alternatively whether the principle should be reformed en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher Clarus Press on behalf of School of Law, Trinity College Dublin en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Dublin University Law Journal;29, pp. 26-56
dc.relation.uri https://www.tcd.ie/Law/dublin-university-journal/
dc.subject double jeopardy en_US
dc.subject retrials en_US
dc.subject policy considerations en_US
dc.title Evaluating the common law principle against retrials en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en_US
dc.type.supercollection all_ul_research en_US
dc.type.supercollection ul_published_reviewed en_US
dc.date.updated 2015-08-25T09:27:15Z
dc.description.version PUBLISHED
dc.rights.accessrights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.internal.rssid 1119709
dc.internal.copyrightchecked Yes
dc.description.status peer-reviewed


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ULIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics