Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 January 2016 |
| Date | 01 January 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712715623225 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
Noticeboard
Noticeboard
Jeremy Gans
Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University, Australia
Law Reform and Source Material
Double jeopardy—Australia
Double Jeopardy Reform in the Australian Capital Territory. Information Paper, Justice and Community Safety
Directorate, September 2015. Available at: http://www.justice.act.gov.au/resources/attachments/Double_
jeopardy_information_paper.pdf.
This paper from the justice department of the territorial government of Australia’s national capital can-
vasses options for limiting the common law principle of double jeopardy in that jurisdiction, in light of
recommendations made by national bodies and the local public prosecutor. The paper rejects proposals
to allow appeals against directed acquittals (citing human rights concerns) and interlocutory appeals
against rulings on the admissibility of evidence (citing limitations on the capacity of the territory’s appeal
court), but endorses proposals to allow retrials following acquittal on the basis of fresh and compelling
evidence and a tainted trial and for administration of justice offences that question an earlier acquittal.
However, citing human rights concerns, the paper recommends safeguards beyond those adopted or rec-
ommended elsewhere in Australia, including presumptions in favour of bail, non-retrospectivity, publica-
tion restrictions (for fresh and compelling evidence offences), a requirement of a prior conviction for an
administration of justice offence (for tainted trials) and a requirement that the retrial be in the interests
of justice (for administration of justice offences). Finally, the paper recommends permitting an acquitted
person to seek an indemnity for costs associated with an application for a retrial and any resulting trial.
Rights—Australia
Traditional Rights and Freedoms—Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws. Interim Report No. 127,
Australian Law Reform Commission, July 2015. Available at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/alrc127.
This report by Australia’s peak law reformagency sets out interim conclusionson its review of the compat-
ibility of the national parliament’s statutes withcommon law rights and freedoms. Thechapter on fair trial
rights concludes that laws thatlimit such rights for nationalsecurity reasons, and laws onclient-legal privi-
legeand religious confessionprivilege, warrant furtherreview. The chapter on the burdenof proof concludes
that laws reversing the legal onus on matters essential to culpability, including deeming provisions in drug
offences and directors’ liability in taxation offences, warrant further review. The chapter on self-incrimination
seeks comment on whether a further review of use and derivative use immunities is necessary.
Corresponding author:
Jeremy Gans, Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University, 185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia.
Email: jeremy.gans@unimelb.edu.au
The International Journalof
Evidence & Proof
2016, Vol. 20(1) 83–85
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365712715623225
epj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial