Matters Arising From The Death of Stephen Lawrence

[anglolawyer]

What?? Does that mean that if a person is acquitted in the UK -- found not guilty -- he can be tried again for the same crime? How did that happen? The principle of "no double jeopardy" has been a foundation of Western jurisprudence -- at least in the English-speaking countries -- for hundreds of years. Who promoted overturning it, on what basis?

I share your astonishment. The law was changed precisely because of this case and then used to convict two persons of the crime after an interval of nearly two decades (on very thin evidence and in a trial possibly tainted by prejudicial publicity). It is an example of populist government at its worst. It doesn't matter which government passed the legislation because nobody is arguing for its repeal. There is a requirement that new evidence should come to light but it's just a bad law IMO.

 

[Information Analyst]

Were the Lawrence's actually discredited? I didn't hear about it if they were. Were they being used by the sort of subversive elements the cops have been infiltrating and monitoring for years?

There's probably a bit of chicken-and-egg about this aspect, given that the Usual Political Suspects inevitably clung to the Lawrence campaign like a rash. It's being presented as the police wanting to know what the Lawrences were up to, because they were criticising the police, but it seems just as likely that the police were twitchy about some of those who had attached themselves to the Lawrences' campaign.

 

[anglolawyer]

There's probably a bit of chicken-and-egg about this aspect, given that the Usual Political Suspects inevitably clung to the Lawrence campaign like a rash. It's being presented as the police wanting to know what the Lawrences were up to, because they were criticising the police, but it seems just as likely that the police were twitchy about some of those who had attached themselves to the Lawrences' campaign.

That's what I as wondering. There seems to be another issue, though, about material being withheld from the MacPherson enquiry. And the shredding in 2003 sounds sinister. Still, I am sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The police would never act improperly as many right here on this forum will tell you.

 

[Information Analyst]

What?? Does that mean that if a person is acquitted in the UK -- found not guilty -- he can be tried again for the same crime? How did that happen? The principle of "no double jeopardy" has been a foundation of Western jurisprudence -- at least in the English-speaking countries -- for hundreds of years. Who promoted overturning it, on what basis?

It's only for cases where there is compelling new evidence. The same sort of compelling new evidence that in other cases could overturn a wrongful conviction.

 

[Bob001]

It's only for cases where there is compelling new evidence. The same sort of compelling new evidence that in other cases could overturn a wrongful conviction.

So who decides what's "compelling new evidence?" If a judge rules that new evidence is so compelling that the original jury would -- or even might -- have voted to convict, that's essentially like instructing the new jury to find the defendant guilty. I can't imagine how this wouldn't prejudice a fair trial. And the defendant is never truly cleared if the prosecutor can say "We lost this round, but we won't give up. We're gonna nail this guy." The prosecutor has the defendant's whole lifetime to manufacture evidence or get witnesses to change their stories. This is just crazy.

 

[catsmate]

So who decides what's "compelling new evidence?"

That would be Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in England.
The either has to be "new and compelling evidence" (and then only for certain offenses) or a "Tainted Acquittal", i.e.

(in) circumstances where the acquittal resulted from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness (or potential witness). In such circumstances, an acquitted person can be re-tried for the original offence.

This is subject to an appeal to the relatively new UK Supreme Court.

New and compelling evidence
(1)The requirements of this section are met if there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence.
(2)Evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related).
(3)Evidence is compelling if—
(a)it is reliable,
(b)it is substantial, and
(c)in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
(4)The outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(5)For the purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.

If a judge rules that new evidence is so compelling that the original jury would -- or even might -- have voted to convict, that's essentially like instructing the new jury to find the defendant guilty. I can't imagine how this wouldn't prejudice a fair trial.

I fail to see any reasonable basis for your assertion.

And the defendant is never truly cleared if the prosecutor can say "We lost this round, but we won't give up. We're gonna nail this guy."

Very, very wrong. Firstly Part 10 can only be invoked once, secondly there is that requirement (which you seem to be ignoring) for evidence, both new and compelling, to satisfy a court that there is justification for quashing an acquittal.

The prosecutor has the defendant's whole lifetime to manufacture evidence or get witnesses to change their stories. This is just crazy.

And now you're off on a lunatic tangent.

 

[Information Analyst]

So who decides what's "compelling new evidence?" If a judge rules that new evidence is so compelling that the original jury would -- or even might -- have voted to convict, that's essentially like instructing the new jury to find the defendant guilty. I can't imagine how this wouldn't prejudice a fair trial. And the defendant is never truly cleared if the prosecutor can say "We lost this round, but we won't give up. We're gonna nail this guy." The prosecutor has the defendant's whole lifetime to manufacture evidence or get witnesses to change their stories. This is just crazy.

Not sure how it works wherever you are, but in the UK these days the Crown Prosecution Service (not elected "prosecutors," which we don't have) will generally only recommend a trial if there is either a reasonable chance of conviction in the first place, or compelling "public interest."

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?

 

[Bob001]

....
And now you're off on a lunatic tangent.

Lunatic tangent? In the U.S., when innocent people are proven to have been convicted unjustly, it often comes to light that prosecutorial misconduct of one kind or another -- withholding evidence, doctoring or misrepresenting lab results, intimidating witnesses -- played a big role in their original conviction. What makes you think there'd be no misconduct if the loser had a second chance? If you want to claim that UK prosecutors -- whatever their title -- never bend the rules to win, you're welcome to do so, but I suspect evidence to the contrary wouldn't be hard to find. And if a court proclaims "this is such compelling new evidence that we need to try this guy again," it's tantamount to telling the jury that the first verdict was wrong. It has to reduce the possibility of a fair trial by an impartial jury. Jurors know there won't be a second trial if the new evidence helps prove the already-acquitted guy is still innocent.

Sometimes people do get away with murder. That's terrible, but it would be much worse if innocent people can be hounded forever.

 

[Bob001]

.....
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?

One reason is that the consequences of being unjustly convicted severely harm a specific person. He might be imprisoned, he might lose his property and his livelihood, his life is shattered. He needs to be made whole to the degree possible. And any of us could be falsely accused and convicted. But the consequences of a guilty person going free are more amorphous. You might say the whole society suffers, or the victim doesn't get the satisfaction of seeing the perpetrator punished. But the fact is that many crimes don't result in an arrest or a civil charge, and many charges don't lead to convictions. The consequences for us as a society are worse when innocent people get convicted than when a criminal goes free.

 

[catsmate]

Lunatic tangent? In the U.S., when innocent people are proven to have been convicted unjustly, it often comes to light that prosecutorial misconduct of one kind or another -- withholding evidence, doctoring or misrepresenting lab results, intimidating witnesses -- played a big role in their original conviction.

I'm quite familiar with the problems in the US system, I have participated in a number of threads here dealing with US cases that are/may miscarriages of justice.

What makes you think there'd be no misconduct if the loser had a second chance?

Well firstly the UK doesn't elect prosecutors, law enforcement and (especially) judges, so there's less tendency to the mob rule one sees in the USA.
Nor is execution (which doesn't exist in the UK and the rest of the EU) the political issue that it is in the US.

Secondly, as I already pointed out, the prosecutor (in fact the Director of Public Prosecutions) has to demonstrate to a court (of unelected judges) that sufficient evidence to satisfy the specific terms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, i.e. demonstrate evidence of serious misconduct of the trial or that significant new evidence exists.

If you want to claim that UK prosecutors -- whatever their title -- never bend the rules to win, you're welcome to do so, but I suspect evidence to the contrary wouldn't be hard to find.

You, really, really don't know me if you suggest I hold such a ridiculous opinion.

And if a court proclaims "this is such compelling new evidence that we need to try this guy again," it's tantamount to telling the jury that the first verdict was wrong.

No, it's not. Further I suggest you examine the standards for the new evidence; for example even a plea of guilty to the offense of having committed perjury at the original trial has been rejected as insufficient.

It has to reduce the possibility of a fair trial by an impartial jury. Jurors know there won't be a second trial if the new evidence helps prove the already-acquitted guy is still innocent.

So why, if they're so prone to jumping to irrational conclusions, bother with any jury trials?

Sometimes people do get away with murder. That's terrible, but it would be much worse if innocent people can be hounded forever.

Sigh. Your hyperbole about people being "hounded forever" is just silly; the change in the law is specific and subject to reasonable safeguards. Not least is the infrequency of its use and the attention when it is invoked.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am with Bob0001. Double jeopardy should not have been abolished as a knee jerk reaction to the incompetence and corruption of the Lawrence case. The state already holds all the high cards and doesn't need any more.

 

[Rolfe]

Double jeopardy, for the tenth time, has not been abolished. It has been de-abolished. It is now possible for a defendant to be put in jeopardy twice.

Also in Scotland, in a sort of me-too reaction. And they're going to abolish corroboration as well. I'm not terribly happy about any of that, or about the "certainty and finality" thing in the Cadder provisions.

Rolfe.

 

[Travis]

There is the same exception for Double Jeopardy in the United States. If compelling evidence comes to light you can be tried again. What is prohibited is trying the same person over and over again with the same evidence.

 

[Dubious Dick]

Looks like there may also be a link to the Daniel Morgan murder.
http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26472252

This is the angle that is most important to clear up.

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.

I think that the undercover SDS officer apparently assigned to keep an eye on the Lawrence family and supporters is a sideline issue to the more widespread police corruption, but, as with other issues like Hillsborough, the main players are now either dead, long retired or will not talk for fear of their lives.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The consequences for us as a society are worse when innocent people get convicted than when a criminal goes free.

The consequences for an individual are worse, but society as a whole is not greatly harmed by a few wrong convictions. A criminal who goes free may commit further crimes, while an innocent who is wrongly convicted probably won't. Therefore the harm caused to those few innocents should be more than offset by the benefit of having many more criminals taken off the streets.

It is only when the injustice becomes known to a wider audience that society as a whole is worse off (so long as everybody thinks the conviction is sound we are quite happy). Therefore it is perfectly understandable that the police would attempt to cover up any evidence of 'misconduct'. They are only looking after our best interests.

In this case however the police are guilty - of not keeping a lid on it.

any of us could be falsely accused and convicted.

Yes, but unless you are a shady character the chances are very low. In the unlikely event that you do get falsely accused and convicted, please don't protest your innocence - it will only make the consequences worse for us as a society.

 

[Bob001]

There is the same exception for Double Jeopardy in the United States. If compelling evidence comes to light you can be tried again. What is prohibited is trying the same person over and over again with the same evidence.

I don't think that's true. What sometimes happens is that someone will be tried on federal charges after being acquitted on state charges, or the same facts and evidence will be used to support different charges, or an appeals court will throw out a conviction and order a new trial. But if OJ stood on the LA County courthouse steps and said "I did it, nyah, nyah," he couldn't be arrested for murder.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/double-jeopardy-term.html

 

[anglolawyer]

Double jeopardy, for the tenth time, has not been abolished. It has been de-abolished. It is now possible for a defendant to be put in jeopardy twice.

Also in Scotland, in a sort of me-too reaction. And they're going to abolish corroboration as well. I'm not terribly happy about any of that, or about the "certainty and finality" thing in the Cadder provisions.

Rolfe.

Oh stop it Rolfe! Double jeopardy in this context is a contraction signifying (the rule against) double jeopardy. Any more of this and I'm going back to spelling it 'Sian Jenkins' just to bring you out in spots

 

[Bob001]

Double jeopardy, for the tenth time, has not been abolished. It has been de-abolished. It is now possible for a defendant to be put in jeopardy twice.
....

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.

 

[catsmate]

There is the same exception for Double Jeopardy in the United States. If compelling evidence comes to light you can be tried again. What is prohibited is trying the same person over and over again with the same evidence.

Which is prohibited in the UK anyway.

 

[Information Analyst]

But the consequences of a guilty person going free are more amorphous.

You mean like someone being murdered by a previous killer who got off on a technicality/lack of evidence?