R v Carroll: Double Jeopardy and Criminal Law Principles

This case study analyzes the R v Carroll case, which revolves around the legal principle of double jeopardy. The respondent, Carroll, was initially acquitted of murder charges but was subsequently charged with perjury based on his testimony during the murder trial. The case explores whether the subsequent perjury charge constituted double jeopardy, given the prior acquittal. The legal issues at hand include the application of sections 16 and 17 of the Criminal Code (Qld), which address double jeopardy, and the concept of abuse of process. The court considered the implications of the acquittal in the murder trial and whether the perjury indictment contradicted the prior verdict. The High Court ultimately ruled on the admissibility of new evidence and its impact on the double jeopardy rule, providing crucial insights into the interplay between these legal principles. The case also references relevant legal precedents such as Pearce v The Queen and H M Advocates v Cairns, which further shaped the court's decision and the understanding of double jeopardy in criminal law.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
R v Carroll (2002)
Legal Issues
The main issue that had been raised in the case was whether the respondent could be
tried for double jeopardy.
Legally Material Facts
The case was related to the stay of a perjury indictment which was in contradiction to
the acquittal of murder charges of the respondent, Carroll. Carroll was charged with the
murder of an infant whose body was found on the roof of a toilet block. In the post-mortem
report it was found that the baby was sexually abused and was strangled to death. Further in
the post-mortem report bite marks and bruises where found on the legs of the baby which
were matched with the marks of the teeth of the respondent. During the trial the respondent
was seen as claiming that he had been at RAAF Base Edinburgh when the child was
murdered. Although he was found guilty of the murder yet he was set free because of the lack
of evidence which could disprove the claims made by Carroll for not being present in Ipswich
when the murder happened. After the acquittal of the respondent there were new and
substantial evidence found by the police related to the case. Witnesses were seen as coming
forward whose claims linked the murder of the infant with Carroll. In furtherance evidence
were gathered by the police in relation with the bite marks found on the body of the child. On
the basis of the testimonies of the witnesses and the new and substantial evidence Carroll was
charged with an indictment of perjury. On the indictment it had been claimed that perjury was
done by Carroll when during the murder trial he falsely swore that he was not guilty of killing
the baby. An appeal was made by Carroll against the perjury conviction in the Appeal Court
of Queensland.

2CRIMINAL LAW
Law
Under s.17 of the Criminal Code1 it has been stated that showing any individual who
is accused for an indictment for which they have already been tried and either convicted or
acquittal is a defence to the charge of any offence.
Undes.16 of the Code2 it has been stated that any individual cannot be punished twice
for a same offence.
As per the judgment of the case Pearce v The Queen3 the use of term ‘double
jeopardy’ can be seen as having more than a single meaning and is employed with various
stages of the process of criminal justice including the prosecution, the conviction and the
punishment.
Section 598 (2) (e)4 of the Code provides that an accused person can plead against an
indictment when the individual has already been tried, acquitted or convicted for an offence
that has either been committed or has been accused to be committed.
The question of whether the evidence for the earlier crimes of an accused individual
might be leading as evidence for the trial for a different offence has been directly considered
in the case H M Advocates v Cairns5.
Application
The provisions of section 16 & 17 were decided by the court to be taken together for
understanding the common aspects of the ‘double jeopardy’ rules. It was further held by the
judges that two kinds of cases are dealt by the provisions of section 17. The first type of case
1 Criminal Code 1899, s.17
2 Criminal Code 1899, s.16
3 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
4 Criminal Code 1899, s.598(2)(e)
5 H M Advocates v Cairns 1967 SLT 165

3CRIMINAL LAW
is when an accused has been convicted for any such offence that has been charged later. The
second types of cases that are dealt under the provisions of this section are the indictments of
conviction for any offence that they already have been tried for.
Applying the judgment of the Pearce v The Queen case it was decided by the judges
that the given case applies to none of the limbs of the section 17.
Applying the provisions of section 598 (2) (e) the court held that perjury cannot be
held as a verdict on the trial for the murder and similarly murder was not a verdict in the
given case of perjury.
Applying the judgment of the case H M Advocates v Cairns in the given scenario the
court held that in the given trial perjury conviction was inevitable to be controverting the
former acquittal of the respondent from the murder trial and it was not in consistence with the
rules of double jeopardy. The High Court was seen as dismissing the appeals and ruled that
the rules of double jeopardy would be applicable by effect with the new and substantial
evidences found.
Conclusion
The court came into an conclusion that on the basis of the new and the substantial
evidences the respondent could be tried for double jeopardy.

4CRIMINAL LAW
Reference
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
H M Advocates v Cairns 1967 SLT 165
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55