Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/191991533/2012-Submission-Part-8-Crimes-Appeal-and-Review-Act
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 19:21:53
Document Index: 382689727

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'Art1']

2012 Submission Part 8 Crimes Appeal and Review Act | Double Jeopardy | Acquittal
enregistrerEnregistrer 2012 Submission Part 8 Crimes Appeal and Review Ac... pour plus tard
Rtemio Villareal vs People
Cases - Gonzalo, Castro
Villareal vs People a Hazing Case
People v. Udang Sr. y Sevilla
13-Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010
United States v. Julien, 318 F.3d 316, 1st Cir. (2003)
Submission to the statutory inquiry into Part 8 of the Crimes (Repeal and Review) Act 2001 (the Act).
The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (CCL) is one of Australias leading human rights and civil liberties organisations. Founded in 1963, NSWCCL is a non-political, nonreligious and non-sectarian organisation that champions the rights of all. To this end the NSWCCL attempts to encourage public debate and influence government policy on a range of human rights issues by preparing submissions to parliament and other relevant bodies. CCL is grateful for the invitation to make a submission to this inquiry. We raise the following matters:A. Problems of principle and practice. 1. The legislation as presently embodied in Part 8 Crimes (Repeal and Review) Act 2001 (the Act) is contrary to the common law as it has developed over generations of cases here, in England and other common law countries. It is also in contravention of Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The prohibition on double jeopardy is well established in human rights law and appears in many national constitutions and Bills of Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee has commented that the retrial of a criminal case is strictly prohibited in accordance with the principle of ne bis in idem. The prohibition on retrospective criminal laws is also well established in human rights law as well as appearing in many national constitutions and Bills of Rights. Australia has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and has made no reservations concerning double jeopardy or retrospectivity. Australia is therefore obliged to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territorythe rights recognised in the ICCPR, including the prohibitions against double jeopardy and retrospectivity. 2. The legislation has unlimited retrospective operationthere is no time limit imposed on when the trial said to be the subject of the acquittal occurred. This is not reasonablefor how long must an acquitted person retain evidence that might conceivably be needed in his or her defence? How is a person acquitted long before the legislation was enacted to recover evidence that might be necessary in a new trial? 3. The legislation distorts long accepted criminal law procedures by eroding the principle of finality and introducing a new kind of verdict-the conditional acquittal. In denying the principle [of double jeopardy], we are creating something new. [W]e are creating the conditional acquittalA person who stands trial will not be able to leave the court sighing with relief. Many of us have had the experience of a client almost collapsing at the end of a trial, and we have been able to say to
him or her It is over. You can rebuild your life. We will not be able to say that any more.1 The United Kingdom Law Commission commented: The finality involved in the rule against double jeopardy represents an enduring and resounding acknowledgement by the state that it respects the principle of limited government and the liberty of the subject. The rule against double jeopardy is on this view, a symbol of the rule of law.The rule serves to emphasise commitment to democratic values.2 4. The legislation undermines public confidence in the jury system. 5. It will be impossible to appeal an acquittal without prejudicing the acquitted persons retrial. Ordinary retrials are inevitably be-devilled by media and internet reports. Although the Act prohibits the prosecution from telling the jury they are hearing a retrial and prohibits any report of the fact of or the findings of the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, any first trial is likely to have received a good deal of publicity in view of the seriousness of the offences; there may well have been calls in the media for an appeal against acquittal; it will be practically impossible to empanel a jury that will not be in a position to infer that the superior court has found that the fresh evidence is compelling. There has so far been no case where an appeal against an acquittal has been made to the CCA. However the Attorney General has been reported to be considering an appeal against the acquittal of Jay Hart in relation to the Bowraville murders. The case has been discussed on Four Corners, Australian Story, The Weekly, Nine MSM and the Daily Telegraph and a number of lesser media; there has been discussion on talkback programmes. There has been much talk about justice for the murdered Aboriginal children. How will twelve persons be found who have not been influenced by this discussion? The legislation should be repealed. B. If Part 8 is to be retained the CCL submits that:(i) S98 be amended to remove paragraphs (b) aggravated sexual assault in company and (c) various offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act from the definition of life sentence offences; (ii)S 99(3) be amended to introduce a time limitation on the acquittals subject to review; and (iii) S 100(3) covering manslaughter- be deleted.
BaronessHelenaKennedyQCofTheShaws,UnitedKingdomParliamentaryDebates, HouseofLords,17July2003.
DoubleJeopardyandProsecutionAppealsLawCom267(2001)
C. Costs The cost to an accused of defending him or herself at the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA), and if necessary at a retrial, will necessarily be very high. The CCL submits that in a case where an application for a retrial is unsuccessful, the accused should be entitled to costs; and when a retrial is held but the accused is acquitted for a second time, costs should be awarded in respect of both the application hearing and the second trial. Amendments should be made to include specific provisions to this effect in Part 8 as well as amending Ss 70 and 72 of the Act. Martin Bibby Co-convenor, Civil and Indigenous Rights, Police, Security and Antiterrorism Powers and Criminal Justice Subcommittee Malcolm Ramage QC Member of the full Committee.
Documents similaires à 2012 Submission Part 8 Crimes Appeal and Review Act
Thirdymon Punde
Eaton v. Ward, 10th Cir. (1997)
Jackson v. Hines, 10th Cir. (2008)
James Wilkett, Thomas H. Conklin, Jr., and Joe F. Hoover, Defendants v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 10th Cir. (1981)
CriminalLawArt1-3
Plus de nswccl
NSWCCL Newsletter 2013 August-September
HOUSE HEARING, 113TH CONGRESS - LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT
Chapter 3 - Privacy and Information Security
regioalism and multilateralism
Litonjua vs. Marcelino Digest