Appealing an aquittal in a criminal trial

CantGetNoSleep

Was the law changed in recent years so the prosecution can appeal an aquittal in certain circumstances? I think I remember our lecturer saying this, anyone know the relevant legislation?

gaf1983

Part Four, sections 21-24 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 deal with this issue.

This is how the Explanatory Memorandum explains the amendments made by this act to the Criminal Procedure Act 1967:

The existing prosecution right of appeal in relation to cases tried on indictment is contained in section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967.
It provides for a prosecution right of appeal on a point of law arising
from a judge directed acquittal. This right of appeal is without prejudice
i.e. it cannot interfere with the decision to acquit the accused.
Accordingly the consequences of the appeal are strictly limited to
the point of law at issue in the direction.

The most important point I get from my reading of it is that appeals are without prejudice.

Our man in Havana

A jury verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed save where it is a directed verdict.

Sully

Bond-007 wrote: »

A jury verdict of not guilty cannot be appealed save where it is a directed verdict.

Yup, as stated by the prosecution in the recent trial of John OBrien.

I am curious though, what is the current law on having someone go to trial for the same crime again - with new evidence?

Our man in Havana

I would be curious what action the state could take if an acquitted person admitted their guilt outside the court?

dermot_sheehan

Double jeopardy would bar a re-trial after a jury acquittal.


Interestingly in the early 90's it was possible to technically appeal a jury acquittal for murder or rape in the central criminal court to the supreme court. This was because the constitution provides that all decisions of the high court (which the central criminal court is) can be appealed to the supreme court subject to exceptions provided by law. The Supreme Court construed this provision as not including the common law prohibition on appealing jury acquittals. The Oireachtas however in the criminal procedure act 1993 by statute prohibited an appeal from a jury acquittal in the central criminal court to the supreme court

Our man in Havana

So the DPP could not bring new charges if an acquitted person went outside the central criminal court and went over to the media and said "I murdered xxxxx" etc?

Could lesser charges be brought like serious assault etc?

amen

I belive if your are charged for an offense and found not guilty then you cannot be then charged for a lesser offense as the not guilty on the greater charge is deemed to have included all the lessor charges that may have arisen

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

So the DPP could not bring new charges if an acquitted person went outside the central criminal court and went over to the media and said "I murdered xxxxx" etc?

Could lesser charges be brought like serious assault etc?

Possibly inadmissable as hearsay, but in any event the prosecution bear the burden of proof, and have ample opportunities to secure an admission prior to trial.

Gobán Saor

Sully wrote: »

I am curious though, what is the current law on having someone go to trial for the same crime again - with new evidence?

Can't happen. Not in Ireland, anyway. The law was changed in the UK some years (as a result of the Stephen Lawrence murder, I think) to allow for fresh trials in such circumstances. We never followed suit. Given the propensity of Irish juries to acquit wrongdoers we probably have more need of it than the Brits:D

The accused could be charged with perjury (if the new evidence showed he lied at the original trial) or perverting justice if he concealed evidence or intimidated witnesses. Case law permits pretty stiff sentences particularly if the original trial was for a serious offence.

I liked Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion etc) take on jury trials. When asked whether he'd prefer to be tried by a judge or a jury, he said (roughly paraphrased): If I'm innocent, I'll opt for a judge; if I know I'm guilty, I'll go for a jury every time, the more ignorant and prejudiced the better.

johnnyskeleton

Gobán Saor wrote: »

I liked Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion etc) take on jury trials. When asked whether he'd prefer to be tried by a judge or a jury, he said (roughly paraphrased): If I'm innocent, I'll opt for a judge; if I know I'm guilty, I'll go for a jury every time, the more ignorant and prejudiced the better.

That essay, if anything, showed how ignorant and prejudiced Richard Dawkins actually is.

If I was innocent, I'd opt for a jury trial every time. If I was guilty, I'd also opt for a jury, unless my only argument was a highly technical legal argument.

Victor

amen wrote: »

I belive if your are charged for an offense and found not guilty then you cannot be then charged for a lesser offense as the not guilty on the greater charge is deemed to have included all the lessor charges that may have arisen

While it is usual that all charges need to be brought together, I think that odd.

Surely someone could be found guilty of assault, but not murder and vice versa someone could be found not guilty of murder but guilty of assault. You might want to read that a few times .

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

While it is usual that all charges need to be brought together, I think that odd.

Surely someone could be found guilty of assault, but not murder and vice versa someone could be found not guilty of murder but guilty of assault. You might want to read that a few times .

If you are charged for one offence, you often be found not guilty but guilty of a lesser offence (or you can plead guilty to the lesser offence), but if you have been acquitted of a more serious offence you cannot be retried on a less serious offence arising from the same facts.

Our man in Havana

So if a murder suspect was acquitted, and he later made a confession or new evidence came to light, he could never be retried on any offence pertaining to the death?

johnnyskeleton

Bond-007 wrote: »

So if a murder suspect was acquitted, and he later made a confession or new evidence came to light, he could never be retried on any offence pertaining to the death?

As far as I'm aware yes, although there was a proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill 2007 which doesn't seem to have been passed which would allow the DPP to appeal an acquittal in such circumstances.

This is why the gardai will often drop a charge and wait for further evidence to be obtained rather than let the matter proceed.

A more extreme example is that where, for example, the DPP forget to introduce a technical or minor proof before it closes it's case, it is very rare that a judge will allow them to reopen their case for this "new" evidence to be admitted.

Victor

What happens if A assaults B, is convicted of assault, but then B dies of injuries (is the 1 year rule still there?).

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

What happens if A assaults B, is convicted of assault, but then B dies of injuries (is the 1 year rule still there?).

I'm not sure that that rule ever really existed in the Irish State, but it's really a question of causation. However, as a matter of reality, I doubt that a homocide charge would be brought if the death was very long and drawn out.

Also, s.4 assault carries life, so it's as good as manslaughter.

Gobán Saor

Victor wrote: »

What happens if A assaults B, is convicted of assault, but then B dies of injuries (is the 1 year rule still there?).

It was the "year and a day" rule and it was abolished in a criminal justice bill.