Double Jeopardy in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Central Insurance Company Ltd v Seacalf Shipping Corporation (Aiolos)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 17 Febrero 1983

    That there is a long-standing practice that, before giving judgment in an action at the suit of an equitable assignee, the court will normally require him to bring his assignor before the court is beyond doubt. The concept behind the rule is that the debtor should not be put in double jeopardy.

  • Public Prosecutor of Hamburg v Altun
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 02 Marzo 2011

    It was for the prosecutor to make sure that he had what he needed when he instituted and continued to finality those proceedings on the European Arrest Warrant. It was after all his choice to bring proceedings when he did. It was not open to him thereafter to issue a fresh warrant relying on new evidence to counter the defendant's case on double jeopardy, even if that evidence was not to hand when the first warrant was discharged.

  • R v Z
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Junio 2000

    The objection to the admissibility of this evidence is based on Lord MacDermott's statement in Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya [1950] A.C. 458, 479 that the effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court after a lawful trial is not restricted to the fact that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. He said that it is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication.

  • Attorney General's Reference (Nos. 14 and 15 of 2006); R v Tanya French and Alan Robert Webster
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 08 Junio 2006

    Where a defendant has had no responsibility for the fact that he has been given a sentence which is unduly lenient, we consider that it accords with justice that, when substituting a weightier sentence, this court should have some regard to the distress and anxiety experienced by the defendant as a consequence of having his sentence re-opened and increased.

    The distress and anxiety is likely to be particularly great where the decision of this court results in a defendant being placed in prison where originally no custodial sentence was employed, where a custodial sentence has been completed, where the defendant is young and immature or where the defendant was about to be discharged from prison. In all of these cases the distress and anxiety caused by the double jeopardy is likely to be significant when weighed against the original offending.

  • Johnson v Gore Wood & Company (A Firm)
    • House of Lords
    • 14 Diciembre 2000

    That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before.

  • R v Humphrys
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Mayo 1976

    (6) In general, the doctrine in criminal law precludes the Crown from adducing evidence or making suggestions which are inconsistent with a previous verdict of acquittal when its real effect is determined.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT