Evaluation of Double Jeopardy Rule Reforms: UK Legal Perspective

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the double jeopardy rule in UK law. It begins with an introduction to the rule, which prevents a person from being punished twice for the same offense. The main body critically evaluates the reforms made to this rule, discussing the context of the Stephen Lawrence murder case and the arguments for and against these changes. The report highlights the reasons for the double jeopardy rule, such as preventing government overreach and protecting individuals from financial and social costs, while also examining the arguments for reform, which aim to rebalance the criminal justice system in favor of victims. It explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of these reforms, considering the impact on both the accused and the pursuit of justice. The report concludes by summarizing the key points and emphasizing the complexities of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to ensure justice in serious cases, drawing on the European Convention on Human Rights and its implications.

Double Jeopardy Rule

Table of Contents
Double Jeopardy Rule .....................................................................................................................1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Main Body.......................................................................................................................................1
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4

Introduction
The double jeopardy rule is the primary principle of the UK law which defines the rule
that a person will not be sentenced punishment twice for the same offence in case the person was
acquitted earlier or convicted. The following law is an unavoidable consequence which allows a
person to gain immunity from the conviction and punishment of the same crime already
committed. The report will critically evaluate the reform of double jeopardy rule.
Main Body
Double jeopardy is defined as the criminal procedural defence that provides assistance to
the criminal from being punished for the same criminal activity twice after being accused or
convicted. The main purpose for the existence of double jeopardy rule is because of many
reasons that firstly, it prevents the government from exploiting their apparently limitless
resources to attempt to carry to the court innocent persons for multiple times until the judgement
of conviction is not passed. The example which describe this point will be that suppose a person
is accused for punching his wife and not found guilty in a jury trial. So the rule will forbid the
prosecutor from accusing the defendant again and again until the person is not found guilty. The
other reason is that it saves people from the financial expenses caused due to the multiple
proceedings and from social costs as well. And finally, it minimizes the judges from punishing
the same accused twice for the same offence(Amendements in the double jeopardy, 2018).
The reforms in the double jeopardy rule came in front of the UK politics with the inquiry of
Stephen Lawrence murder case. The investigation report included that if the new and reliable
evidence will be generated in future against the three suspects who were acquitted for the crime
will not be convicted again irrespective of the strong evidences it would be. The arguments were
raised to give the considerations to the courts to allow the prosecution after the acquittal, because
it will lead to increase the chance of leading to injustice. All these arguments resulted in making
the House of Commons suggested the law commission to consider changes to the rule against the
double jeopardy rule. Considering the inquiry and many cases specifically in the murder cases
the parliament initiated to make revisions in the rule. The main purpose of the reform is to
rebalancing the system of criminal justice in favour of the victim. The government of UK sought
to remove the rule of double jeopardy from the serious cases. The reforms were required because
1

the rule safeguarded the acquitted defendants as the grave injustice to victims were caused in the
certain cases where compelling fresh evidence arrives in future when the acquittal is granted. As,
their were the arguments to change the rule their were many arguments which were opposing the
reforms in the rule were that, the prosecution authorities should proceed with their best abilities
at the first trial only and should only accuse someone when the proper evidences are collected.
The person already convicted should not spent the entire life in distress regarding the further trial
, it will lead to emotional burden for the person and his family. The new evidences can be
considered as reliable without proper examination which will lead to unfair trial for the convict
in the future. As the rule will be reformed the police will not investigate properly at the initial
investigation for the case. The another reason for fear is that the convict not punished for the first
time can be framed by the police with false charges at the second trial.
The comments were in favour to initiate the reforms in the serious cases where the
punishment involve is of life sentence and the court can help the judgement in the general
interest of public where they can apply to the high court for the acquittal to be quashed. The
members of the council of Europe has signed the he European convention on human rights,
which is an international treaty formulated to protect the fundamental and procedural freedoms
in the country(Double jeopardy overview, 2018). The bill contains the seventh protocol in article
four that no person should be liable to be punished again for the criminal proceedings already
been conducted. Many members also introduced the second provision which describes that the
provisions of preceding statement should not rescue the reopening of the case which the law and
state authority is concerned with. It is initiated by giving benefit of doubt to the lack in previous
proceedings of proper investigation or in case where the new authentic facts are discovered that
will have effect on the outcome of the case.
The change in the reforms of the double jeopardy rule came with the several reactions
and they were concerned with that I will help the convicts in a handful more in handling the
serious criminals but, it will also lead to the repeated prosecution for the people who are innocent
and will increase the distress level for them.
So, the reforms can be beneficial as well as can create unfair means in the cases for the
innocent people. But, the changes are formed for bringing the betterment in the society and the
proceedings of the cases in effective manner.
2

Conclusion
It can be summarized from the above report that the reforms in the double jeopardy rule
is for the changes that are required to handle the serious cases where justice is not been granted
because the loop holes in the trial proceedings and because of the benefits this rule provides to
the convicts. Whereas, it also describes the distress it causes to the people who are innocent and
go through repeated trials for the offence which they have not committed or already have taken
punishment for. Further, report includes the positive and negative aspects of the reforms in the
rule and the changes in the law body framed by the concerned members.
3

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Amendements in the double jeopardy, 2018 [Online]. Available
through:<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/double-
jeopardy-clause-in-fifth-amendment-administrative-law-essay.php >.
Double jeopardy overview, 2018 [Online]. Available
through:<https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-double-jeopardy-definition-lesson-
quiz.html >.
4