Move to change U.K. criminal law opposed

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, MARCH 10. Britain's legal fraternity and human rights activists are up in arms against a move that would fundamentally change the country's ancient criminal law under which a person once tried for murder and acquitted cannot be tried again for the same crime.

A proposal made by the Law Commission and likely to be implemented by the Blair Government, if returned to power, calls for repeal of the principle of ``double jeopardy'' which bars retrial of a person on the same charge. The Commission has recommended that a fresh trial should be possible if there is new ``compelling'' evidence to suggest that the acquittal in the first instance was not based on sufficient grounds. The Commission was asked by the Government to suggest changes to the ``double jeopardy'' law following the Macpherson Commission's inquiry into the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Three men suspected of the murder were acquitted after a court found that the evidence relating to their identification was not reliable and under the existing law they cannot be tried again.

The Macpherson Commission, without commenting on the merit of the court verdict, had suggested that ``in modern times such absolute protection may sometime lead to injustice.'' Reports suggest that a change in the ``double jeopardy'' law would be with retrospective effect which could pave way for a retrial of the three men. It is believed that there are over 30 murder cases which could be reopened if the proposal becomes law.

The move has provoked outrage among civil liberties groups and lawyers who have called it unfair and inconsistent with the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Under the proposed law, a person even after he or is proved in would have the Damocles' sword hanging over their hand; and it would give immense power of harassment to the police. ``In principle, it cannot be right for somebody who has been acquitted to be tried again, albeit for murder'', the Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Roy Amlot, QC, said arguing that it would be unfair to put someone through a trial ``without finality''.

Besides, it could encourage lazy investigation by the police ``if they think that should things go wrong they may have another crack at some time in the future.''

Another legal expert told The Guardian, which incidentally supports the proposal, that the police might never look for another suspect after a defendant is acquitted. ``They will just keep on after him, trying to trap him and to dig up `fresh' evidence ...'', he said. Mr. John Wadham, director of Liberty, a civil rights body, argued that protection under ``double jeopardy'' was a fundamental part of the criminal justice system and its abolition could lead to innocent people being convicted.

The basic argument against the proposal is that it is in conflict with the fundamental principle that once a person has been tried and acquitted he or she should be free to lead a normal life without the shadow of doubt hanging over his/her head for ever. It is also argued that a retrial would be loaded against the suspect as a jury - Britain still has jury system - would be influenced by the very decision to retry a person.

``The retrial would stack the dice against the defendant to an extraordinary degree since a jury would be liable to perceive the very fact of a retrial as a clear-cut indication of guilt'', The Independent said in an editorial.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Outrage over lifer for teenager
Next     : Russia, allies brace to meet rebel attacks