Double Jeopardy
| Author | Christopher Gale |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.1.8 |
| Published date | 01 February 2007 |
| Date | 01 February 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Central Criminal Court |
Central Criminal Court
Double Jeopardy
R vDunlop (unreported, 11 September and 6 October 2006)
The defendant faced two trials for the murder of Julie Hogg in Bill-
ingham, Cleveland on 16 November 1989. Each time the jury failed to
reach a verdict. He was formally acquitted in October 1991 at Newcastle
Crown Court.
On 14 April 2000, the defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of
perjury arising out of the evidence he gave at the murder trials. He had
admitted to prison staff while serving a sentence for other matters that
he had killed Julie Hogg and boasted that, because of his acquittal and
the double jeopardy provisions of the common law under which a
person could not be retried for offences in respect of which he had
previously been acquitted, he was immune from further prosecution for
it. He was, however, sentenced to six years' imprisonment to run
concurrently on each perjury charge. This sentence was consecutive to
one of seven years he was already serving for assault, which was
imposed in 1998, making a total of 13 years.
A change in the double jeopardy law came into force in April 2005
through the provisions contained in Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003 (‘the CJA 2003’). This followed an examination of the double
jeopardy rule and recommendations made by the Law Commission in
2001 (Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, Law Com Report No. 267,
6 March 2001). Once Part 10 had come into effect, Cleveland Police and
Cleveland Crown Prosecution Service re-examined the case and it was
decided that the DPP should be asked for his consent as required under
s. 76 of the CJA 2003 for the case to go before the Court of Appeal in
order that the acquittal might be quashed.
Before the DPP gives consent, s. 76 requires certain conditions to be
met, including that there should be new and compelling evidence, and
that a retrial was in the public interest. After looking at submissions, the
DPP gave his consent and the case went before the Court of Appeal.
Under ss 77–79 of the CJA 2003, the Court of Appeal has the power
to quash an acquittal and order a retrial where there is new and
compelling evidence relevant to the guilt of the acquitted person and it
is in the interests of justice to do so. Having considered arguments in this
case, a five-judge Court of Appeal gave its consent on 17 May 2006 for
the defendant to be retried for the murder of Julie Hogg. The Court of
Appeal held that in the police interviews following his admission of the
killing, the defendant knew that the double jeopardy rule might be
altered.
The defendant pleaded guilty to murder on 11 September 2006 and
was, on 6 October 2006, given the mandatory life sentence by Calvert-
Smith J with a recommendation that the minimum term he should serve
before being considered for release on licence should be 17 years.
8
To continue reading
Request your trial