Advantages And Disadvantages Of Double Jeopardy

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

After observing the trial of Mr. Sanger Rainsford, many concerns arose for me. There was quite a bit of information proposed by the prosecution that seemed

Both models’ fundamental principal is discovering the truth. The crime control model focuses on the truth regardless of how it is reached whereas the due process model places restrictions on what the state can do to discover the truth. In addition, the crime control model aims for the repression of criminal conduct, whilst the due process model aims to prevent and eliminate crime. Packer’s intentions were not to create two separate models; rather he intended to create a spectrum from one extreme to the other. The Scottish legal system does not wholly consist of crime control elements nor due process elements. It is a mixture of both of these models that attempts to balance the rights of the state to secure a conviction, with the rights of the accused to a fair trial. It can be seen that there is not an appropriate balance between the two as there is not equal and proportionate rights given to both parties, resulting in excessive protection being given to the defendant. This imbalance is best described by discussing the powers of the state in contrast to the defendant’s rights pre-trial and during trial.

This essay will explore how prosecutorial misconduct causes wrongful convictions in both the United States and Australia. This essay will also argue that rehabilitation and compensation should be provided by the state. A major flaw in the criminal justice system not only in the United States but also in Australia, is the failure to set forth a plan for the people who were exonerated to be accepted back into society. The lack of a plan for rehabilitation for the exonerated poses a problem for society since some might find it easier to find a job in prison then in the real world, this process makes it immensely difficult for prisoners to get acclimated back into society. The Australian Law Review Committee is an entity which evaluates and gives

This report will analyse the role, principles and responsibilities of the Investigators in the McLeod-Lindsay case, it will describe how the legal boundaries and operational requirements were applied and detailing the legal procedures that were applied. Also including evidence and factors that brought about the pardon and the problems that the case highlights for the adversary system and its use of evidence.

The 5th amendment is another amendment us law enforcement officers should know well. The 5th amendment states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The 5th amendment gives citizens’ rights by giving them guaranteed rights to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy and also protects citizens against self-incrimination. Probably the most important thing for law enforcement officer is the self-incrimination part. When an arrest is made and the suspect is in custody. When the police take the suspect into custody and start interrogating him that is when the officer has to read him the Miranda warning. This will what I will have to take most out of this amendment. Also the meaning of double jeopardy is for preventing someone to be charged with the same or similar crime. Meaning nobody can be tried twice for the same charge. Backing up a little bit, the 5th amendment was first adopted and made an amendment on December 15, 1791 when James Madison first proposed it to the House Of Representatives.

Procedural fairness is an extremely important factor in achieving justice in the legal system. The importance of procedural fairness can be displayed through the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) as there was a lack of procedural fairness applied, resulting in a lack of justice. Dr Haneef was suspected of terror related offences and subsequently held without charge for an excess of 12 days due to evidence linking him to a terrorist attack in Glasgow. This evidence was later proven incorrect. The links between Haneef and the suspected offences were not enough to go to trial. Dr Haneef was incarcerated for three weeks, two of which he was held in 23 hours isolation, after being wrongly convicted of a 'reckless association with terrorist groups.' His reputation was tainted and his VISA revoked, as well as his wife's without any reason for the cancellation. All of these actions during the investigation of Haneef show a lack of procedural fairness resulting in his unjust treatment. Justice was not achieved in the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007). This case reinforces the importance procedural fairness has in the legal system as it reflects the legal system not achieving justice when an individual is not treated with equal rights, opportunities and awareness of what is occurring. Therefore, the doctrine of procedural fairness is essential to achieving

One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).

The need for judges and magistrates to take into account individual factors of a case in particular highlights the great role played by discretion in this process. The requirement of these judicial officers to take into account the facts, circumstances and seriousness of the offence as well as certain subjective factors about the offender as set out by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) highlights the strong role of discretion which is involved in this particular step of the sentencing process. In this step of the sentencing process, the use of judicial discretion results in a fair and equitable decision being made as the case is judged on its own merits. For example, Former NSW Chief Justice Anthony Murray Gleeson stated that “judicial discretion is most important – and most difficult to sustain – during the sentencing process” in a NSW Parliament publication. This clearly highlights the importance of discretion when considering the individual facts of any particular case.

another hearing on the same case. But what if, in the case of “Double Jeopardy”, Libby finds out

Till the nineteenth century the greater part of the criminal cases were discarded by jury trial. A supplication of nolo contendere in offense cases permitted the litigant to submit to conviction without confessing to blame. However nolo contendere supplications were not permitted in genuine crime cases. Until the recent 50% of the nineteenth century, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, blameworthy supplications as legitimate procedural instruments were utilized just seldom and verbosely.

William the Conqueror introduced the jury system into England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings. It wasn’t until the 14th century when their roll came to determiner of fact in a case.

“It’s a general problem not specific to the law of the United Kingdom a criminal justice system characterized by an emphasis on crime control rather than due process will inevitably produce miscarriage of justice.”

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

This essay will be looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the jury trial. Jury trial is a legal proceeding where a jury makes a decision, which then direct the actions of a judge. The members of a jury are a group of independent citizens. They have no interest in the case before them, nor is their judgment coloured by regular experience of the business of the court. They are “twelve individuals, often with no prior contact with the courts, who are chosen at random to listen to evidence and decide upon matters affecting the reputation and liberty of those charged with criminal offences.” The jury has always been drawn from sections of society but has been made democratic only in the last half century. And now almost all citizen of the United Kingdom are eligible to serve on a jury. But the percentage of criminal cases actually tried by jury is surprisingly low. Nowadays “the magistrates’ courts deal with at least 95 per cent of criminal cases. In practice juries determine the outcome of less than 1 per cent of the total of the criminal cases.” But still the idea of trial by jury has always been seen as a “cornerstone of the English legal system” , and it remains the standard mode of trial for dealing with the most serious types of criminal case. But even though it is established and been in practice for years, people seem to believe that there are disadvantages to jury trails. Nonetheless, the jury system is becoming increasingly controversial. Critics claim that