Defendants
acquitted of any one of about 30 listed crimes could be tried again if new
evidence emerged in connection with their case, under a wholesale assault
by the government on the ancient, double jeopardy rule.
The criminal justice bill will scrap the double jeopardy rule for 10
times as many crimes as previously indicated.
A white paper last summer said the change would apply to cases of
murder, rape and armed robbery. The Law Commission, the official law
reform body, which recommended change in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence
case, said it should apply only to murder.
But the bill lists 30 crimes punishable by a maximum sentence of life,
including class A drugs offences, war crimes and hijacking, and arson
endangering life, which will be affected by the new rule. Anyone acquitted
of conspiracy to commit any of those offences, even if the offence was
never committed, will also be liable to be tried again.
A second trial will be possible if "compelling new evidence" comes to
light indicating guilt, whether through DNA , fingerprint tests or new
witnesses.
The Home Office minister Lord Falconer said it was difficult to predict
how many defendants would be retried but suggested "a handful a year".
The consent of the director of public prosecutions would be needed to
reopen the case. And the measure is to be retrospective, allowing
acquittals secured in the past to be reopened.
Matthias Kelly, the vice chairman of the bar, said that the bill was "a
wholesale abolition of the rule against double jeopardy". He added: "We
remain opposed to this on principle. If anything, it stiffens our
resolve."
Another controversial measure ends the universal right to trial by jury
for serious crimes. Judges will be able to opt for hearing cases alone,
with no jury, in lengthy or complex financial or commercial cases such as
money laundering, or in cases where there is a risk of jury tampering,
such as in organised crime. If attempts were made to nobble - interfere
with - the jury, the judge would be able to continue alone or order a
retrial.
Defendants will also get the right to trial by judge alone rather than
with a jury.
The government dropped its earlier proposals, twice defeated in the
Lords, to end the right of defendants in "either way" offences to choose
trial by jury rather than magistrates. But magistrates' sentencing powers
will be increased, initially from six months to 12, to discourage so many
cases being sent for jury trial.
In a further contentious reform, judges will be able to allow jurors to
hear about defendants' previous convictions and details of other "bad
character" evidence where relevant. A women who previously made complaints
against a rape defendant could be called to give evidence, for instance,
even if no action had been taken over the earlier complaints. Lord
Falconer said this rule would not be limited, as now, to cases where the
defendant acted in a strikingly similar way each time.
Hearsay evidence will be more widely admissible, with jurors deciding
on its importance. Witness statements could be used in evidence where the
witness was unavailable to testify.
Prosecutors will have a new right of appeal where the judge stops a
trial without letting it go to the jury. Rules letting large numbers of
professionals - including doctors, lawyers and judges - escape jury
service, will be scrapped.
Everyone will be eligible for service except the Queen, the mentally
disordered and those with criminal records.
Police will be able to give bail at the scene of arrest, and the bill
extends the time for detaining a suspect without charge, under the
authority of a superintendent, to 36 hours for any arrestable offences.
Pilot schemes whereby crown prosecutors rather than police decide
whether or not to charge a suspect and what offence to charge, will be
extended nationwide; research showed the move led to more convictions and
fewer discontinued cases.
The defence will also have to disclose more of its case to the
prosecution, and the accused will have to provide a more detailed defence
statement.
John Wadham, director of human rights group Liberty, called the bill a
shameful attack on justice. "Blaming fair trial protection for crime rates
is wrong and misleads the public. In years to come, as more innocent
people emerge after years in prison caused by these plans, we'll wonder
how parliament let this attack on justice get into law".
