SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that any relaxation of the
double jeopardy rule should apply only to offences for which a
life sentence would be available to the court on conviction and
where the Director of Public Prosecutions determines that it is
in the public interest to apply to the High Court for the acquittal
to be quashed. (paragraph 24)
2. We find the concept of using subsequent
scientific advances to solve older cases sensible. There may also
be a case for treating as new evidence the testimony of witnesses
or physical evidence which existed but was not available at the
time of the first trial. (paragraph 30)
3. We think it less persuasive to base a retrial
on evidence which was available to the first court but was ruled
inadmissible at the time. (paragraph 31)
4. We conclude that a due diligence test—whether
the new evidence could have been adduced with due diligence at
the first trial—is not an appropriate requirement for a
second trial. Nonetheless, the need for a competent initial police
investigation cannot be stressed too highly in the interests of
justice. (paragraph 38)
5. On balance, we conclude that the test to
be applied by the High Court should be whether the new evidence
makes the previous acquittal unsafe, thus putting the emphasis
on the past acquittal rather than appearing to prejudge any future
second trial. (paragraph 41)
6. On balance we conclude that the difficulty
of obtaining a fair second trial is not an absolute bar to such
a change in the double jeopardy rule. Whether a particular case
can be retried fairly will be argued before the court on each
occasion. (paragraph 44)
7. We do not expect that the proposed relaxation
of the double jeopardy rule would have an adverse impact on the
quality of future police investigations. (paragraph 48)
8. We conclude that, if there is a case for
relaxing the double jeopardy rule, then it should not be fettered
and should apply to past and the future cases without limit. (paragraph
55)
9. We welcome the examination now being conducted
by the Law Commission of prosecution appeals on legal issues in
the course of a criminal trial. (paragraph 62)
10. We conclude there is a strong case for
relaxation of the double jeopardy rule to allow re-trials in the
following circumstances:
- there is new evidence that makes the previous
acquittal unsafe
- the offence is sufficiently serious for a
life penalty to be available to the judge on conviction. (paragraph
66)
11. We do, however, expect the Government
to produce a timely response to the Law Commission's conclusions.
(paragraph 67)
12. This report is designed to aid debate
in the House on the issue of relaxing the double jeopardy rule.
We will therefore seek an early opportunity for such a debate.
(paragraph 58)
| 
