Crime Solicitors

By Comfort Akindoyin

The emergence of new scientific evidence has resulted in the re-trial of two men previously acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The 800 year old Double Jeopardy Rule preventing a person from being tried for the same crime twice was abolished 6 years ago in April 2005.

The ‘new & compelling evidence’ in the Stephen Lawrence case was a grey bomber jacket and multi-coloured cardigan which was deemed sufficient, reliable and substantial new evidence by the Court of Appeal to justify a re-trial of the case.

The number of re-trial’s to date since the removal of the double jeopardy rule has been limited. In 2006 William Dunlop was convicted of the murder of Julie Hogg in Teeside in 1989 after two trials for her murder in 1991. Mr Dunlop admitted to the murder of Ms Hogg at the Old Bailey in 2006 and was later convicted of her murder and sentenced to a minimum of 17 years imprisonment. The conviction came after a long campaign from the victim’s mother which was considered focal to the change of the law.

There are limits as to the circumstances in which a re-trial can be ordered under the double jeopardy rule, they require the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions, they must be in the public interest and the previous conviction must be quashed by the appeal court.

Many of you who have been reading the headlines in recent weeks may believe that the Stephen Lawrence case is the first time the double jeopardy rule has been used following the discovery of forensic evidence. However this is not the case in 2010 Mr Mark Western was the first person to face a murder re-trial following the emergence of new forensic evidence. Mr Western was initially found not guilty of the murder of Vikki Thompson in Oxfordshire in 1995 but later convicted after a re-trial at Reading Crown last year.

The Stephen Lawrence case is a high profile case therefore questions have arisen as to whether a jury in the re-trial may be prejudiced towards the defendants and are likely to be influenced by the media coverage and publicity surrounding the case. On the other hand, the Stephen Lawrence case is unique in that the inquiry into the failings of the police in investigating the death of Stephen Lawrence in 1999 concluded that there was institutional racism in the police force which impacted upon the entire police investigation therefore some may argue that a re-trial is much needed. In addition following the killing of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 Lord Macpherson suggested that a review of the double jeopardy rule take place in light of the failings of the police in the Stephen Lawrence case again highlighting the circumstances and type of case that the double jeopardy rule is likely to apply to.

In 2005 when the double jeopardy rule was abolished those arguing against the change in the law argued that it may result in the police bringing cases to court with limited evidence knowing that if the case were to collapse they would always have another chance to bring their case to court (“a second bite of the cherry”), there was also the fear that there would be an increase in the number of miscarriages of justice. In fact neither have been arguments that have materialized since the removal of the double jeopardy rule. The reality is that the circumstances in which the double jeopardy rule has been used is limited due to the ‘new and compelling evidence’ threshold which must be passed. However problems may arise with the use of double jeopardy in high profile cases and potential bias juries who will be aware that the re-trial has been ordered based upon the emergence of new forensic evidence.

To put into context the limitations of the double jeopardy rule and the level of new and compelling evidence that must be established, it must be noted that a full forensic review of the Stephen Lawrence evidence started in 2006, following the review the Crown Prosecution Service made an application for a re-trial, the re-trial is taking place in November of this year 5 years after the commencement of the forensic review.

Whilst we all wait with baited breath for the re-trial due to take place in November 2011 we must all remember the words of the Lord Chief Justice; that this is only the first hurdle for the family of Stephen Lawrence whether the defendants are guilty for his murder is yet to be determined.

As scientific and forensic evidence develops and is more efficient and precise who know’s what the future holds for the double jeopardy rule and whether it will be used more frequently as technology evolves…only time will tell.