The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that it had taken place only at the prosecution’s third attempt, the two earlier trials reaching no majority verdict. He said that the third trial was an abuse.
Held: There had been no abuse in holding the third trial. There had been differences in the ways both cases had been presented, but the defence had not been prejudiced. However: ‘the jurisdiction which permits a second re-trial after two jury disagreements in circumstances like the present must be exercised with extreme caution. The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice leads us to the clear view that a second re-trial should be confined to the very small number of cases in which the jury is being invited to address a crime of extreme gravity which has undoubtedly occurred (as here) and in which the evidence that the defendant committed the crime (again, as here), on any fair minded objective judgment remains very powerful.’
Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Royce
[2010] EWCA Crim 3, Times 26-Jan-2010
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Forrester Bowe (Junior) v The Queen PC 10-Apr-2001
PC (The Bahamas) The Board considered a suggestion that the defendants second re-trial for murder was an abuse of process: ‘It is a common practice for prosecutors in England and Wales to offer no evidence . .
Cited – Regina v Byrne CACD 15-Feb-2002
. .
Cited – Regina v Benguit CACD 2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.392986