1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,100
In jurisprudence Double Jeopardy
is a procedural defense, 

2
00:00:03,100 --> 00:00:04,700
primarily in common law 
jurisdictions. 

3
00:00:04,700 --> 00:00:08,200
That prevents an accused person,
from being tried again, on the 

4
00:00:08,200 --> 00:00:11,200
same or similar charges, 
following an acquittal or a 

5
00:00:11,200 --> 00:00:14,000
conviction and in rare cases, 
prosecutorial and, or judge 

6
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:17,200
misconduct in the same 
jurisdiction, Double Jeopardy is

7
00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:20,100
a common Concept in criminal law
in civil law. 

8
00:00:20,100 --> 00:00:24,600
A similar concept is that of res
judicata variation in common law

9
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:26,000
countries is the peremptory 
plea. 

10
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:29,000
Which may take the specific 
forms of otra for quit 

11
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:31,500
previously. 
Netted or otra for convict 

12
00:00:31,500 --> 00:00:34,500
previously convicted these 
doctrines appear to have 

13
00:00:34,500 --> 00:00:37,700
originated in ancient Roman law 
in the broader principle, non 

14
00:00:37,700 --> 00:00:41,800
Bisson item, not twice against 
the same availability as a legal

15
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:44,100
defense. 
If a double jeopardy issue is 

16
00:00:44,100 --> 00:00:47,100
raised evidence will be placed 
before the court which will 

17
00:00:47,100 --> 00:00:49,600
typically rule as a preliminary 
matter whether the plea is 

18
00:00:49,600 --> 00:00:52,700
substantiated, if it is, the 
projected trial will be 

19
00:00:52,700 --> 00:00:55,500
prevented from proceeding in 
some countries certain 

20
00:00:55,500 --> 00:00:57,600
exemptions are permitted in 
Scotland. 

21
00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:00,900
A new trial can be initiated if,
for example, All the acquitted 

22
00:01:00,900 --> 00:01:04,099
is made a credible admission of 
guilt, part of English law for 

23
00:01:04,099 --> 00:01:06,700
over 800 years. 
It was partially abolished in 

24
00:01:06,700 --> 00:01:09,200
England, Wales and Northern 
Ireland by the criminal justice 

25
00:01:09,200 --> 00:01:12,100
act 2003. 
We're following demand for 

26
00:01:12,100 --> 00:01:14,400
change serious. 
Offenses, may be retried 

27
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:16,700
following an acquittal if new 
and compelling evidence is 

28
00:01:16,700 --> 00:01:18,500
found. 
And if the trial is found to be 

29
00:01:18,508 --> 00:01:21,800
in the Public's interest in some
countries, including Canada, 

30
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:25,700
Mexico and the United States, 
the guarantee against being 

31
00:01:25,700 --> 00:01:27,900
twice, put in Jeopardy as a 
constitutional, right? 

32
00:01:27,900 --> 00:01:30,700
In other countries. 
The Section is afforded by 

33
00:01:30,708 --> 00:01:34,300
Statute in common law countries.
A defendant may enter a 

34
00:01:34,308 --> 00:01:38,200
peremptory plea of otra for quit
previously acquitted or otra for

35
00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:40,900
convict previously convicted 
with the same effect. 

36
00:01:40,900 --> 00:01:43,900
Double Jeopardy is not a 
principle of international law. 

37
00:01:43,900 --> 00:01:46,900
It does not apply between 
different countries, unless 

38
00:01:46,900 --> 00:01:49,100
having been contractually agreed
on between those countries. 

39
00:01:49,100 --> 00:01:53,900
As, for example, in the European
Union, art, 54, Schengen 

40
00:01:53,900 --> 00:01:56,900
convention, and in various 
extradition treaties between two

41
00:01:56,900 --> 00:01:59,600
countries International 
Covenant, on civil and political

42
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:04,600
Writes, the 72 signatories and 
166 parties to the international

43
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:07,800
Covenant on civil and political 
rights recognized under article,

44
00:02:07,800 --> 00:02:10,600
14-7. 
No one shall be liable to be 

45
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:13,000
tried or punished again for an 
offense, for which he has 

46
00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:15,500
already been finally, convicted 
or acquitted in accordance with 

47
00:02:15,500 --> 00:02:17,700
the law and penal procedure of 
each country. 

48
00:02:18,100 --> 00:02:21,100
However, it does not apply to 
prosecution's by two different 

49
00:02:21,100 --> 00:02:23,900
sovereigns, unless the relevant 
extradition treaty, expresses a 

50
00:02:23,908 --> 00:02:28,100
Prohibition European convention 
on human rights, all members of 

51
00:02:28,100 --> 00:02:30,900
the Council of Europe, which 
includes Nearly all European 

52
00:02:30,900 --> 00:02:33,800
countries and every member of 
the European Union have adopted 

53
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:35,700
the European convention on human
rights. 

54
00:02:36,100 --> 00:02:39,600
The optional protocol number 72,
the convention article for 

55
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:41,300
protects against Double 
Jeopardy. 

56
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:44,000
No one shall be liable to be 
tried or punished again in 

57
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:46,700
criminal proceedings under the 
jurisdiction of the same state 

58
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:49,100
for an offence for which he, or 
she is already been finally 

59
00:02:49,100 --> 00:02:51,400
acquitted or convicted in 
accordance with the law and 

60
00:02:51,400 --> 00:02:55,300
penal procedure that state, all 
EU states ratified this optional

61
00:02:55,300 --> 00:02:58,300
protocol except for Germany, the
United Kingdom and the 

62
00:02:58,300 --> 00:03:01,800
Netherlands in those men. 
States national rules governing 

63
00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:03,900
Double Jeopardy. 
May or may not comply with the 

64
00:03:03,900 --> 00:03:07,900
provision cited above member 
states, May, however, Implement 

65
00:03:07,900 --> 00:03:10,400
legislation, which allows 
reopening of a case if new 

66
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:12,300
evidence is found. 
Or if there was a fundamental 

67
00:03:12,300 --> 00:03:15,500
defect in the previous 
proceedings, the provisions of 

68
00:03:15,500 --> 00:03:18,200
the preceding paragraph shall 
not prevent the reopening of the

69
00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:21,000
case in accordance with the law 
and penal procedure of the state

70
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:23,000
concerned. 
If there is evidence of new or 

71
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:25,700
newly discovered facts, or if 
there has been a fundamental 

72
00:03:25,700 --> 00:03:28,100
defect in the previous 
proceedings, which could affect 

73
00:03:28,100 --> 00:03:31,400
the outcome of the case in, Many
European countries, the 

74
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:34,100
prosecution May appeal an 
acquittal to a higher Court. 

75
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,600
This is not regarded as Double 
Jeopardy but as a continuation 

76
00:03:37,600 --> 00:03:40,900
of the same case the European 
convention on human rights 

77
00:03:40,900 --> 00:03:43,300
permits this, by using the 
phrase finally, acquitted or 

78
00:03:43,300 --> 00:03:45,600
convicted as the trigger for 
prohibiting subsequent, 

79
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:50,300
prosecution, by country United 
States, the ancient protection 

80
00:03:50,300 --> 00:03:51,700
of the common law against 
Double. 

81
00:03:51,700 --> 00:03:54,600
Jeopardy is maintained in its 
full rigor in the United States.

82
00:03:55,100 --> 00:03:57,400
The Fifth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution 

83
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:01,200
provides nor shall any person, 
be Subject to the same offense, 

84
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:04,400
to be twice, put in Jeopardy of 
life or limb conversely. 

85
00:04:04,500 --> 00:04:07,700
Double Jeopardy comes with a key
exception under the multiple, 

86
00:04:07,700 --> 00:04:10,400
sovereignties Doctrine. 
Multiple sovereigns can indict, 

87
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:13,300
a defendant for the same crime, 
the federal and state 

88
00:04:13,300 --> 00:04:15,500
governments can have overlapping
criminal laws. 

89
00:04:15,700 --> 00:04:18,500
So a criminal offender, may be 
convicted in individual states 

90
00:04:18,500 --> 00:04:21,300
and federal courts for exactly 
the same crime or for different 

91
00:04:21,300 --> 00:04:23,200
crimes arising out of the same 
facts. 

92
00:04:23,700 --> 00:04:27,600
However, in 2016, the Supreme 
Court held that Puerto Rico is 

93
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:29,800
not a separate Sovereign for 
purposes of the double jeopardy.

94
00:04:29,900 --> 00:04:32,700
Jeopardy Clause the Dual 
sovereignty Doctrine has been 

95
00:04:32,700 --> 00:04:36,200
the subject of substantial 
scholarly criticism as described

96
00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:38,700
by the US Supreme Court in its 
unanimous decision. 

97
00:04:38,700 --> 00:04:41,800
Concerning ball v United States 
1896. 

98
00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:44,500
One of its earliest cases 
dealing with double jeopardy. 

99
00:04:44,600 --> 00:04:47,300
The prohibition is not against 
being twice, punished, but 

100
00:04:47,300 --> 00:04:49,200
against being twice, put in 
Jeopardy. 

101
00:04:49,300 --> 00:04:51,900
And the accused whether 
convicted or acquitted is 

102
00:04:51,900 --> 00:04:55,300
equally, put in Jeopardy at the 
first trial, the double jeopardy

103
00:04:55,300 --> 00:04:57,800
Clause encompasses four, 
distinct prohibitions, 

104
00:04:57,900 --> 00:05:01,300
subsequent prosecution after 
acquittal Subsequent prosecution

105
00:05:01,300 --> 00:05:04,100
after conviction, subsequent 
prosecution after certain 

106
00:05:04,100 --> 00:05:06,400
mistrials and multiple 
punishment in the same 

107
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:09,900
indictment, Jeopardy attaches. 
When the jury is impaneled, the 

108
00:05:09,900 --> 00:05:14,000
first Witnesses, sworn or a plea
is accepted prosecution after 

109
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,300
acquittal with two exceptions. 
The government is not permitted 

110
00:05:17,300 --> 00:05:19,900
to appeal or retry the 
defendant, once Jeopardy, 

111
00:05:19,900 --> 00:05:22,000
attaches to a trial. 
Unless the case does not 

112
00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,400
conclude conditions which 
constitute conclusion of a case 

113
00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:28,600
include after the entry of an 
acquittal weather. 

114
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,800
A directed verdict before the 
case is submitted to the jury a 

115
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,800
directed verdict. 
After a deadlock jury, an 

116
00:05:35,800 --> 00:05:38,600
appellate reversal for 
sufficiency, except by direct 

117
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:42,300
appeal to a higher appellate 
court or an implied acquittal 

118
00:05:42,300 --> 00:05:45,700
via conviction of a lesser 
included offense, re-litigating 

119
00:05:45,700 --> 00:05:48,400
against the same defense of 
fact, necessarily found by the 

120
00:05:48,400 --> 00:05:51,200
jury in a prior acquittal. 
Even if the jury hung on other 

121
00:05:51,200 --> 00:05:54,500
counts, in such a situation, the
government is barred by 

122
00:05:54,500 --> 00:05:57,800
collateral estoppel. 
In these cases, the trial is 

123
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:00,500
concluded in the Shin is 
precluded from appealing or 

124
00:06:00,500 --> 00:06:02,900
retrying the defendant over the 
offense to, which they were 

125
00:06:02,900 --> 00:06:05,300
acquitted. 
This principle does not prevent 

126
00:06:05,300 --> 00:06:08,000
the government from appealing. 
A pre-trial motion to dismiss or

127
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:10,600
other non-merits dismissal or a 
directed verdict. 

128
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:13,700
After a jury conviction, nor 
does it, prevent the trial judge

129
00:06:13,700 --> 00:06:16,300
from entertaining a motion for 
reconsideration of a directed 

130
00:06:16,300 --> 00:06:18,300
verdict. 
If the jurisdiction has so 

131
00:06:18,300 --> 00:06:21,800
provided by ruler statute, nor 
does it prevent the government 

132
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,100
from retrying the defendant 
after an appellate reversal 

133
00:06:24,100 --> 00:06:27,200
other than for sufficiency 
including habeas corpus or 

134
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:28,800
thirteenth, juror appellate 
reversal? 

135
00:06:28,900 --> 00:06:31,500
Is notwithstanding, sufficiency 
on the principle that Jeopardy 

136
00:06:31,500 --> 00:06:34,500
has not terminated the Dual 
sovereignty Doctrine allows a 

137
00:06:34,500 --> 00:06:37,300
federal prosecution of an 
offense to proceed regardless of

138
00:06:37,300 --> 00:06:39,100
a previous state prosecution for
that. 

139
00:06:39,100 --> 00:06:41,700
Same offense and vice versa 
because an act announced as a 

140
00:06:41,700 --> 00:06:44,500
crime by both National and state
sovereignties is an offense 

141
00:06:44,500 --> 00:06:47,100
against the peace and dignity of
both and may be punished by 

142
00:06:47,100 --> 00:06:49,000
each. 
The doctrine is solidly 

143
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:51,400
entrenched in the law, but there
has been a traditional 

144
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:54,000
reluctance in the Federal 
Executive Branch to gratuitously

145
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,100
wield, the power grants due, to 
public opinion, being generally 

146
00:06:57,100 --> 00:07:01,100
hostile to such action, Options.
There are two exceptions to 

147
00:07:01,100 --> 00:07:04,500
bands on retrying defendants. 
If a defendant bribed a judge 

148
00:07:04,500 --> 00:07:07,300
into acquitting him or her, the 
defendant was not in jeopardy 

149
00:07:07,300 --> 00:07:10,900
and can be retried a member of 
the Armed Forces can be retried 

150
00:07:10,900 --> 00:07:12,900
by court-martial in a military 
Court. 

151
00:07:12,900 --> 00:07:15,100
Even if he, or she has been 
previously acquitted by a 

152
00:07:15,108 --> 00:07:18,600
civilian Court, an individual 
can be prosecuted by both the 

153
00:07:18,600 --> 00:07:20,200
United States and an Indian 
tribe. 

154
00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:22,500
For the same acts that 
constitute a crimes in both 

155
00:07:22,500 --> 00:07:24,500
jurisdictions. 
It was established by the 

156
00:07:24,500 --> 00:07:26,600
Supreme Court in United States, 
V Lara. 

157
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:28,300
That is the two are separate 
sovereigns. 

158
00:07:28,900 --> 00:07:31,500
Shooting a crime under both 
tribal and federal law does not 

159
00:07:31,500 --> 00:07:34,600
attach Double Jeopardy, multiple
punishment, including 

160
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:38,400
prosecution after conviction in 
blockburger V United States, 

161
00:07:38,500 --> 00:07:41,900
1932 the Supreme Court announced
the following test. 

162
00:07:41,900 --> 00:07:44,500
The government May separately, 
try and punish the defendant for

163
00:07:44,500 --> 00:07:46,200
two crimes. 
If each crime contains an 

164
00:07:46,200 --> 00:07:48,600
element that the other does not 
blockburger. 

165
00:07:48,600 --> 00:07:51,600
Is the default rule unless the 
governing statute legislatively 

166
00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:55,200
intends to depart, for example, 
continuing criminal Enterprise 

167
00:07:55,300 --> 00:07:59,200
CCE may be punished separately 
from its predicates as can Spira

168
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:02,400
see, the blockburger test 
originally developed in the 

169
00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:05,800
multiple punishments context is 
also the test for prosecution. 

170
00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:10,200
After conviction in Grady, V, 
Corbin 1990, the Court held that

171
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:12,500
a double jeopardy violation. 
Could lie even where the 

172
00:08:12,500 --> 00:08:14,500
blockburger test was not 
satisfied. 

173
00:08:14,500 --> 00:08:16,800
But Grady was later 
distinguished in United States, 

174
00:08:16,800 --> 00:08:20,900
V, Felix 1992, when the court 
reverted to the blockburger test

175
00:08:20,900 --> 00:08:24,000
without completely dismissing 
the gradient, or predation, the 

176
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:26,400
court eventually overruled Grady
in United States. 

177
00:08:26,400 --> 00:08:29,600
V Dixon 1993. 
Prosecution. 

178
00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:32,700
After mistrial, the rule for 
mistrials depends upon who 

179
00:08:32,700 --> 00:08:35,299
sought the mistrial. 
If the defendant moves for a 

180
00:08:35,299 --> 00:08:38,700
mistrial, there is no bar to 
retrial unless the prosecutor 

181
00:08:38,700 --> 00:08:41,400
acted in bad faith. 
For example, go to the defendant

182
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:43,400
into moving for a mistrial 
because the government 

183
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:46,700
specifically wanted a mistrial. 
If the prosecutor moves for a 

184
00:08:46,708 --> 00:08:48,900
mistrial, there is no bar to 
retrial. 

185
00:08:48,900 --> 00:08:51,600
If the trial judge finds 
manifest necessity for granting 

186
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:54,900
a mistrial, the same standard 
governs mistrials granted. 

187
00:08:54,900 --> 00:08:58,400
Sua sponte retrials are not 
common, due to the legal 

188
00:08:58,400 --> 00:08:59,800
expenses. 
To the government. 

189
00:09:00,100 --> 00:09:03,300
However, in the mid-1980s 
Georgia antique dealer, James 

190
00:09:03,300 --> 00:09:06,000
Arthur Williams was try to 
record four times for the murder

191
00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:08,800
of Danny Hansford. 
And after three, mistrials was 

192
00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:11,000
finally acquitted on the grounds
of self-defense. 

193
00:09:11,400 --> 00:09:13,900
The case is recounted in the 
book, Midnight in the Garden of 

194
00:09:13,900 --> 00:09:16,500
Good and Evil, which was adapted
into a film directed. 

195
00:09:16,500 --> 00:09:19,400
By Clint Eastwood the movie 
combines the four trials, into 

196
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:23,600
one Canada, the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms includes 

197
00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:26,700
Provisions, such as section, 11 
H, prohibiting Double Jeopardy. 

198
00:09:27,100 --> 00:09:30,400
However, the prohibition only 
Applies after an accused person 

199
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:33,700
has been finally convicted or 
acquitted Canadian law allows 

200
00:09:33,700 --> 00:09:36,600
the prosecution to appeal an 
acquittal based on legal errors,

201
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:40,400
in rare circumstances, when a 
trial judge made all the factual

202
00:09:40,400 --> 00:09:42,400
findings necessary for a finding
of guilt. 

203
00:09:42,400 --> 00:09:45,500
But misapplied the law, a court 
of appeal, might also directly 

204
00:09:45,500 --> 00:09:47,400
substitute, an acquittal for a 
conviction. 

205
00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:50,400
These cases are not considered 
Double Jeopardy because the 

206
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:52,700
appeal and the subsequent 
conviction are deemed to be a 

207
00:09:52,700 --> 00:09:55,600
continuation of the original 
trial for an appeal. 

208
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:58,200
From an acquittal to be 
successful, the Supreme Court of

209
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:00,100
Canada. 
Where's the crown to show that 

210
00:10:00,100 --> 00:10:02,000
an error in law was made during 
the trial? 

211
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:03,500
And that it contributed to the 
verdict? 

212
00:10:03,800 --> 00:10:06,600
It has been argued that this 
test is unfairly beneficial to 

213
00:10:06,600 --> 00:10:10,200
the prosecution, for instance, 
in his book, my life in crime 

214
00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:13,200
and other academic, Adventures, 
Martin Friedland contends, that 

215
00:10:13,200 --> 00:10:15,700
the rule should be changed. 
So that a retrial is granted 

216
00:10:15,700 --> 00:10:18,600
only when the error is shown to 
be responsible for the verdict. 

217
00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:21,500
Not just a factor though, the 
charter permits appeals of 

218
00:10:21,500 --> 00:10:24,400
acquittals, there are still 
constitutional limits imposed on

219
00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:26,800
the scope of these appeals 
incorporation. 

220
00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:30,000
Professional Day, medicine, 
v-fib Whoa, the Supreme Court 

221
00:10:30,000 --> 00:10:31,700
struck down a provision of 
Quebec law. 

222
00:10:31,700 --> 00:10:34,800
That allowed appellate courts to
conduct a de novo review of both

223
00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:38,800
legal and factual findings in 
doing so, it held that the scope

224
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:41,500
of an appeal may not extend to 
challenging findings of fact, 

225
00:10:41,500 --> 00:10:43,300
were no legal error has been 
made. 

226
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:46,600
At this point, the court 
reasoned, the process ceases to 

227
00:10:46,600 --> 00:10:50,200
be an appeal and instead becomes
a new trial disguised as one, a 

228
00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:52,900
notable example, cited by 
critics of Canada's appeal, 

229
00:10:52,900 --> 00:10:55,700
system is the case of guy Paul 
Morin, who was wrongfully 

230
00:10:55,700 --> 00:10:58,300
convicted in his second trial 
after the acquittal in his first

231
00:10:58,300 --> 00:11:00,400
trial was Vacated by the Supreme
Court. 

232
00:11:00,700 --> 00:11:03,200
Another notable use of the 
system occurred, in the case of 

233
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:05,900
child murderer, guy turcotte. 
The Quebec Court of Appeal 

234
00:11:05,900 --> 00:11:07,600
overturned. 
The initial verdict of not 

235
00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:10,100
criminally responsible, by 
reason of mental disorder in 

236
00:11:10,100 --> 00:11:12,300
order to Second trial after it 
found that the judge had 

237
00:11:12,300 --> 00:11:15,400
erroneously instructed. 
The jury turcotte was later 

238
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:17,800
convicted of second-degree 
murder in the second trial, 

239
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:20,600
United Kingdom, England and 
Wales. 

240
00:11:21,000 --> 00:11:23,300
Double Jeopardy has been 
permitted in England and Wales 

241
00:11:23,300 --> 00:11:26,600
in certain exceptional 
circumstances since the criminal

242
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:31,900
justice act 2003. 3 2003, the 
doctrines of otra for a quitter,

243
00:11:31,900 --> 00:11:34,200
no traffic in vic. 
Persisted as part of the common 

244
00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:36,700
law from the time of the Norman 
conquest of England. 

245
00:11:36,700 --> 00:11:39,200
They were regarded as essential 
elements for protection of the 

246
00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:42,000
subjects, Liberty and respect 
for due process of law, and that

247
00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:43,800
there should be finality of 
proceedings. 

248
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,500
There were only three exceptions
all relatively recent to the 

249
00:11:47,500 --> 00:11:50,100
rules. 
The prosecution has a right of 

250
00:11:50,100 --> 00:11:52,100
appeal against acquittal in 
summary cases. 

251
00:11:52,100 --> 00:11:54,800
If the decision appears to be 
wrong in law or in excess of 

252
00:11:54,800 --> 00:11:58,100
jurisdiction, a retrial is 
permissible if the interests of 

253
00:11:58,100 --> 00:12:00,200
justice. 
So require Wire following appeal

254
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:03,200
against conviction by a 
defendant attended acquittal 

255
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:05,600
where there has been an 
offensive interference with or 

256
00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:08,800
intimidation of a juror or 
witness can be challenged in the

257
00:12:08,800 --> 00:12:14,800
high court in Conley V DP P AC 
1254 the law, Lords ruled that a

258
00:12:14,800 --> 00:12:17,400
defendant could not be tried for
any offense arising out of 

259
00:12:17,400 --> 00:12:19,400
substantially. 
The same set of facts relied 

260
00:12:19,400 --> 00:12:21,600
upon in a previous charge of 
which he had been acquitted. 

261
00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:24,200
Unless there are special 
circumstances proven by the 

262
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:27,100
prosecution, there is little 
case law on the meaning of 

263
00:12:27,100 --> 00:12:29,700
special circumstances. 
But it has been suggested that 

264
00:12:29,700 --> 00:12:32,900
the emergence of new evidence 
would suffice a defendant who 

265
00:12:32,900 --> 00:12:35,100
had been convicted of an 
offense, could be given a second

266
00:12:35,100 --> 00:12:37,300
trial for an aggravated form of 
that offense. 

267
00:12:37,300 --> 00:12:39,700
If the facts constituting, the 
aggravation were discovered 

268
00:12:39,700 --> 00:12:42,200
after the first conviction by 
contrast. 

269
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:44,700
A person who had been acquitted 
of a lesser offense, could not 

270
00:12:44,700 --> 00:12:47,400
be tried for an aggravated form.
Even if new evidence became 

271
00:12:47,400 --> 00:12:51,800
available post 2003, following 
the murder of Stephen Lawrence, 

272
00:12:51,800 --> 00:12:54,700
the McPherson report recommended
that, the double jeopardy rule 

273
00:12:54,700 --> 00:12:57,300
should be abrogated in murder 
cases and that it should be 

274
00:12:57,308 --> 00:13:00,800
possible to subject an Murder 
suspect to a second trial of 

275
00:13:00,800 --> 00:13:02,700
fresh and viable. 
New evidence later, came to 

276
00:13:02,700 --> 00:13:05,900
light, the law commission, later
added, its support to this in 

277
00:13:05,900 --> 00:13:10,000
its report, Double Jeopardy, and
prosecution appeals 2001 a 

278
00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:12,900
parallel report into the 
criminal justice system by Lord,

279
00:13:12,900 --> 00:13:15,500
just assault a past. 
Senior presiding judge for 

280
00:13:15,500 --> 00:13:18,600
England and Wales had also 
commenced in 1999 and was 

281
00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:21,400
published as the all report six 
months after the law commission 

282
00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:24,400
report, it opened at the law 
commission had been unduly 

283
00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:27,100
cautious by limiting the scope 
to murder and that the exception

284
00:13:27,100 --> 00:13:28,700
should extend to other grave 
offenses. 

285
00:13:28,800 --> 00:13:31,600
Is punishable with life and or 
long terms of imprisonment as 

286
00:13:31,600 --> 00:13:35,500
Parliament might specify 1999 
was also the year of a highly 

287
00:13:35,500 --> 00:13:39,100
publicized case in which a man, 
David Smith was convicted of the

288
00:13:39,100 --> 00:13:41,500
murder of a prostitute after 
having been acquitted of the 

289
00:13:41,500 --> 00:13:44,500
almost identical murder of sex, 
worker, Sarah Crump, six years 

290
00:13:44,500 --> 00:13:47,800
previously because of the double
jeopardy laws, that existed at 

291
00:13:47,800 --> 00:13:50,800
the time, Smith could not be 
retried for crumbs murder 

292
00:13:50,900 --> 00:13:53,000
despite police insisting. 
They were not looking for 

293
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:56,000
anybody else and that the case 
was closed in the BBC reporting 

294
00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:58,700
that Smith had beat the earlier 
murder charge both. 

295
00:13:58,900 --> 00:14:02,700
Jack straw, then Home Secretary 
and William, Hague then leader 

296
00:14:02,700 --> 00:14:05,600
of the opposition, favor, the 
measure suggested, by the all 

297
00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:08,800
report these recommendations 
were implemented not on. 

298
00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:11,800
Controversially, at the time, 
within the criminal justice act,

299
00:14:11,800 --> 00:14:15,800
2003, and this provision came 
into force in April 2005. 

300
00:14:16,100 --> 00:14:19,800
It opens certain serious crimes,
including murder manslaughter, 

301
00:14:19,900 --> 00:14:23,800
kidnapping, rape, armed, 
robbery, and serious drug crimes

302
00:14:23,800 --> 00:14:26,300
to a retrial. 
Regardless of when committed 

303
00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:29,400
with two conditions, the retrial
must be a Approved by the 

304
00:14:29,400 --> 00:14:32,300
director of public prosecutions 
and the court of appeal must 

305
00:14:32,300 --> 00:14:34,200
agree to quash. 
The original acquittal due to 

306
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:36,900
new and compelling evidence, 
then director of public 

307
00:14:36,900 --> 00:14:40,000
prosecutions Ken. 
McDonald QC said that he 

308
00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:43,100
expected no more than a handful 
of cases to be brought in a year

309
00:14:43,500 --> 00:14:46,500
pressure by and Ming. 
The mother of 1989 murder 

310
00:14:46,500 --> 00:14:50,200
victim, Julie, hog, whose killer
Billy Dunlop was initially 

311
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:52,300
acquitted. 
And subsequently confessed also 

312
00:14:52,300 --> 00:14:55,900
contributed to the demand for 
legal change on September 11. 

313
00:14:55,900 --> 00:14:59,800
2006 Dunlop became the first 
person to Be convicted of murder

314
00:14:59,800 --> 00:15:02,800
following a prior acquittal for 
the same crime in his case is 

315
00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:04,800
1991. 
Acquittal of hogs murder. 

316
00:15:05,300 --> 00:15:07,900
Some years later, he had 
confessed to the crime and was 

317
00:15:07,900 --> 00:15:10,700
convicted of perjury, but was 
unable to be retried for the 

318
00:15:10,708 --> 00:15:13,700
killing itself. 
The case was reinvestigated in 

319
00:15:13,700 --> 00:15:17,700
early 2005 when the new law came
into effect, and his case was 

320
00:15:17,700 --> 00:15:21,500
referred to the court of appeal.
In November, 2005 for permission

321
00:15:21,500 --> 00:15:23,500
for a new trial, which was 
granted. 

322
00:15:23,700 --> 00:15:26,400
Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder 
and was sentenced to life 

323
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:28,100
imprisonment with a 
recommendation. 

324
00:15:28,100 --> 00:15:32,400
He served No less than 17 years 
on December 13 2010. 

325
00:15:32,500 --> 00:15:34,300
Mark. 
Weston became the first person 

326
00:15:34,300 --> 00:15:37,000
to be retried and found guilty 
of murder by a jury. 

327
00:15:37,100 --> 00:15:41,000
Dunlop having confessed in 1996,
Weston have been acquitted of 

328
00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:43,400
the murder of Vicky Thompson, a 
tasket under, which would on 

329
00:15:43,400 --> 00:15:46,700
August 12, 1995. 
But following the discovery in 

330
00:15:46,700 --> 00:15:50,200
2009 of compelling new evidence,
Thompson's blood on Weston's 

331
00:15:50,200 --> 00:15:52,000
boots. 
He was arrested and tried for a 

332
00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:54,300
second time. 
He was sentenced to life 

333
00:15:54,300 --> 00:15:58,600
imprisonment to serve a minimum 
of 13 years in December 2018. 

334
00:15:58,900 --> 00:16:01,700
Convicted pedophile. 
Russell Bishop was also re tried

335
00:16:01,700 --> 00:16:03,700
and found guilty by a jury for 
the babes. 

336
00:16:03,700 --> 00:16:06,800
In the wood murders of 29 year 
old girls, Nicola fellows and 

337
00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:11,200
Karen hot away on October 9, 
1986 at the original trial. 

338
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:14,800
In 1987, a key piece of the 
prosecution's case rested on the

339
00:16:14,808 --> 00:16:17,500
recovery of a discarded. 
Blue sweatshirt under 

340
00:16:17,500 --> 00:16:20,500
questioning Bishop denied that 
the sweatshirt belonged to him. 

341
00:16:20,600 --> 00:16:23,700
But his girlfriend Jennifer 
Johnson alleged, the clothing 

342
00:16:23,700 --> 00:16:27,100
was Bishops before she changed 
her story in the trial, telling 

343
00:16:27,100 --> 00:16:28,600
the jury. 
She had never seen the top. 

344
00:16:28,700 --> 00:16:32,100
Before attributed to a series of
blunders in the prosecution's 

345
00:16:32,100 --> 00:16:35,100
case, Bishop was acquitted by 
the jury after two hours of 

346
00:16:35,100 --> 00:16:38,100
deliberations. 
Three years later, Bishop was 

347
00:16:38,100 --> 00:16:41,700
found, guilty of the abduction 
molestation and attempted murder

348
00:16:41,700 --> 00:16:45,800
of a seven year old girl in 
February 1990 in 2014, 

349
00:16:45,900 --> 00:16:49,500
re-examined by modern forensics.
The sweatshirt contained traces 

350
00:16:49,500 --> 00:16:52,100
of Bishops DNA. 
And also had fibers on it from 

351
00:16:52,100 --> 00:16:55,200
both of the girls clothing, 
tapings taken from Karen hot 

352
00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:57,300
always arm. 
Also yielded traces of Bishops 

353
00:16:57,300 --> 00:17:01,700
DNA at the He 18 trial, a jury 
of seven men and five women 

354
00:17:01,700 --> 00:17:03,500
returned. 
A guilty verdict after two and a

355
00:17:03,500 --> 00:17:07,900
half hours of deliberation on 
November 14. 2019, Michael were 

356
00:17:07,900 --> 00:17:09,599
became the first person to be 
twice. 

357
00:17:09,599 --> 00:17:12,500
Found guilty of a murder. 
He was originally convicted of 

358
00:17:12,508 --> 00:17:16,099
the murders of Leonard Harrison 
rosoff Aryan in 1999, but the 

359
00:17:16,099 --> 00:17:18,900
conviction was quashed in 2000 
by the court of appeal on a 

360
00:17:18,900 --> 00:17:22,500
technicality. 
In 2018, new DNA evidence had 

361
00:17:22,500 --> 00:17:24,900
been obtained in palm prints 
from both murder scenes, were 

362
00:17:24,900 --> 00:17:28,600
matched to we're 20 years after 
the original conviction were was

363
00:17:28,700 --> 00:17:30,500
Convicted of the murders for a 
second time.