• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Matters Arising From The Death of Stephen Lawrence

Dubious Dick said:
The father of David Norris, one of two of the gang who murdered Lawrence who have been convicted (there are three others) is son of a guy called Clifford Norris who was a big time drug dealer/gangster around South London, and connected with another well known villain, Kenneth Noye. It is widely thought that Clifford Norris, Noye and others had police on the payroll, and that this was a major reason why the investigation into the Lawrence killers was botched originally.
Click to expand...

Ironically, of course, Kenneth Noye managed to get off stabbing an unarmed police undercover surveillance officer to death, and later went on - no doubt "amorphously" - to murder someone else. Would that there had been enough evidence to convict him first time around....
 
Bob001 said:
I think we're using shorthand differently. "Double jeopardy" has usually referred to the principle that someone CAN'T be tried twice for the same crime. "Double jeopardy" has been prohibited in many places for many years. Now, apparently in the UK, that principle has been abolished under some circumstances, so "double jeopardy" now is something the government CAN do to you.
Click to expand...
The UK government can't do anything of the sort.
 
Information Analyst said:
As I intimated previously, this is essentially the flipside of allowing new evidence in over-turning wrongful convictions. If it can be done one way, why not the other? Hypothetically you could have a situation where of two people being jointly tried for a crime, one is convicted and the other equited. If new evidence emerges that soundly exonerates the convicted person and convincingly implicating the acquited, the first would rightly be released, but why should the second stay free?
Click to expand...

Because there's a disparity in power. The Crown Prosecution has all the money and the men and the capabilities the State can muster. The (average) defendant can barely pay his own lawyer.
 
Does anybody know how many cases have been retried since the double jeopardy law was changed? In England I know of Gary Dobson (One of Stephen Lawrence's killers); William Dunlop - who was acquitted of Julie Hogg's murder but later confessed and was retried, pleading guilty; and Mark Weston - retried after compelling new evidence was found (the victim's blood on his boots) and found gulity. In Scotland I only know of the possibility of retrying Angus Sinclair for the Worlds End murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_End_Murders
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Does anybody know how many cases have been retried since the double jeopardy law was changed? In England I know of Gary Dobson (One of Stephen Lawrence's killers); William Dunlop - who was acquitted of Julie Hogg's murder but later confessed and was retried, pleading guilty; and Mark Weston - retried after compelling new evidence was found (the victim's blood on his boots) and found gulity. In Scotland I only know of the possibility of retrying Angus Sinclair for the Worlds End murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_End_Murders
Click to expand...

Do you know why they didn't find the blood on the boots first time round?
 
There is also a problem of harassment, even if nothing is actually done. The Crown Office in Scotland have repeatedly trailed the possibility of re-trying Lamin Fhimah for Lockerbie, even though they have even less evidence against him now than they had when he was acquitted in 2001. He is said to have been put in great fear by these reports.

Rolfe.
 
anglolawyer said:
Do you know why they didn't find the blood on the boots first time round?
Click to expand...

According to media reports they were reexamined with improved equipment, superior halogen lamps and microscopes, which allowed forensic scientists to find very small amounts of the victim's blood in the seams of his boots.
 
Dissolution said:
According to media reports they were reexamined with improved equipment, superior halogen lamps and microscopes, which allowed forensic scientists to find very small amounts of the victim's blood in the seams of his boots.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That's what I was afraid of. Microscopes have been around a long time. I bet halogen lamps too. Should a sloppy prosecution be rewarded with a second try? Another objection to second trials is that the prosecution now has the advantage of having seen the defence and can better prepare to overcome it.

The whole thing stinks IMO.
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmmm. That's what I was afraid of. Microscopes have been around a long time. I bet halogen lamps too. Should a sloppy prosecution be rewarded with a second try? Another objection to second trials is that the prosecution now has the advantage of having seen the defence and can better prepare to overcome it.

The whole thing stinks IMO.
Click to expand...

There's very little doubt that he did it, though. Why should he avoid conviction because of a dodgy trial?
The original foreman seemed to have a problem with the police and the judge ruled out evidence that placed him at the scene of the crime.
He also lied about his shoe size and the investigators were silly enough to take him at his word, somewhat ridiculously.

He picked up two convictions for harassing women after the first trial and his ex-fiance accused him of threatening to kill her and admitting to the murder via text, which the police couldn't use at the time as he'd already been tried.
It was later used as part of the evidence for retrying the case.

Why should somebody else have to get killed for him to be locked up?
 
ddt said:
Because there's a disparity in power. The Crown Prosecution has all the money and the men and the capabilities the State can muster. The (average) defendant can barely pay his own lawyer.
Click to expand...

In the case of a criminal trial a solicitor and barrister will be provided by the state. (Of course being wealthy can still be an advantage.)
 
Bob001 said:
So after you get acquitted at one trial, the government can either try you again for the same crime or they can't. Choose one.
Click to expand...

You've got confused, the second partial quote you used was in reply to a Member saying "...What is prohibited is trying the same person over and over again with the same evidence....".
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmmm. That's what I was afraid of. Microscopes have been around a long time. I bet halogen lamps too. Should a sloppy prosecution be rewarded with a second try? Another objection to second trials is that the prosecution now has the advantage of having seen the defence and can better prepare to overcome it.

The whole thing stinks IMO.
Click to expand...

That's rather silly reasoning. Science and technology are always improving, what may not have been detectable 10 years ago may now be.
 
ddt said:
Because there's a disparity in power. The Crown Prosecution has all the money and the men and the capabilities the State can muster. The (average) defendant can barely pay his own lawyer.
Click to expand...
Except that this measure isn't even remotely being used against the "average" defendant, and in such a case they would undoubtedly get Legal Aid.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Does anybody know how many cases have been retried since the double jeopardy law was changed? In England I know of Gary Dobson (One of Stephen Lawrence's killers); William Dunlop - who was acquitted of Julie Hogg's murder but later confessed and was retried, pleading guilty; and Mark Weston - retried after compelling new evidence was found (the victim's blood on his boots) and found gulity. In Scotland I only know of the possibility of retrying Angus Sinclair for the Worlds End murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_End_Murders
Click to expand...
Indeed. Too many people here are acting as if it's being used for everything upwards of a disputed speeding ticket.
 
anglolawyer said:
Hmmm. That's what I was afraid of. Microscopes have been around a long time. I bet halogen lamps too. Should a sloppy prosecution be rewarded with a second try? Another objection to second trials is that the prosecution now has the advantage of having seen the defence and can better prepare to overcome it.

The whole thing stinks IMO.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt that genuinely guilty people have been acquitted, and a second trial handled better and with better attention to the evidence may produce a just result. A lot of people are pointing that out and it's true. That's the upside of this.

The downside is that the possibility of getting more than one crack at it may encourage a less than completely thorough approach the first time. As you say, it allows the prosecution to see the defence and take evasive action the second time. And it allows the state to pursue an individual maliciously and repeatedly.

It also introduces the danger that after an acquittal the police will not do what they should do, which is re-examine the case from the ground up and see if they have evidence pointing to someone else who can be charged (as was done after the acquittals of the first people charged for the murder of Damilola Taylor), but might rather continue to obsess over their original case trying to find some more evidence.

I suspect that if double jeopardy had been permitted at the time of the original Damilola Taylor acquittal, the real murderers might never have been found. We might still be witnessing the unedifying spectacle of the police announcing that they weren't looking for anyone else and setting out to try the first lot of people again.

And as I said, look how the mere threat has been used to terrify Lamin Fhimah. They've got nothing on him, and if pressed will say that they have no immediate plans to charge him for a second time, but there has been a continual drip drip of stories indicating that this is what they want to do. For a time, every tabloid story about the abolition of the prohibition on double jeopardy was headed up with the assertion "man acquitted of Lockerbie bombing could be re-tried". This is oppressive.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
Does anybody know how many cases have been retried since the double jeopardy law was changed? In England I know of Gary Dobson (One of Stephen Lawrence's killers); William Dunlop - who was acquitted of Julie Hogg's murder but later confessed and was retried, pleading guilty; and Mark Weston - retried after compelling new evidence was found (the victim's blood on his boots) and found gulity. In Scotland I only know of the possibility of retrying Angus Sinclair for the Worlds End murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_End_Murders
Click to expand...
I've been looking but there's no specific case listing that I can find. On the subject purely of acquittals being quashed I've found eight applications of which five were granted. They are:
R v Dunlop [2007] 1 WLR 1657 (new confession evidence, acquittal quashed, retrial ordered)
R v Miell [2008] 1 WLR 627 (new confession unreliable, application dismissed)
R v A [2008] EWCA Crim 2908 (new evidence from other victims, acquittal quashed, retrial ordered)
R v G(G) & B(S) [2009] EWCA Crim 1077 (new evidence from accomplice, unreliable, application dismissed)
Maxwell & Mansell v R [2009] EWCA Crim 2552 (new evidence, acquittal quashed, retrial ordered)
R v B(J) [2009] EWCA Crim 1036 (new evidence from accomplice, unreliable, application dismissed)
R v Weston [2010] EWCA Crim 1576 (new forensic evidence, acquittal quashed, retrial ordered)
R v Dobson [2011] EWCA 1256 (new scientific evidence, acquittal quashed, retrial ordered)

anglolawyer said:
Do you know why they didn't find the blood on the boots first time round?
Click to expand...
Improvements in forensic techniques.

anglolawyer said:
Hmmm. That's what I was afraid of. Microscopes have been around a long time. I bet halogen lamps too. Should a sloppy prosecution be rewarded with a second try? Another objection to second trials is that the prosecution now has the advantage of having seen the defence and can better prepare to overcome it.

The whole thing stinks IMO.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There have been huge improvements in forensic science in the last decades that enable greater certainty. Would you refuse and appeal if a person's innocences was demonstrated by new forensic techniques?
 
Information Analyst said:
Indeed. Too many people here are acting as if it's being used for everything upwards of a disputed speeding ticket.
Click to expand...
Exactly, in the UK (well E&W) and in the proposed model in Ireland, retrials are limited to;

  • Murder, attempted murder, soliciting murder, manslaughter and kidnapping
  • Rape, attempted rape and some associated serious sexual offenses;
  • Trafficking in Class A drugs
  • Arson and explosives offenses where life in endangered
  • Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, directing a terrorist organisation and hostage-taking
  • Conspiracy to commit these offenses.
These all carry potential life sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom