Submission of the University of New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties to the NSW Attorney-General’s Community Consultation of the Draft Criminal Appeal Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 15 October 2003 Authors: Roslyn Cook Sharona Coutts David Poole Trudy Sheehan Michael Walton (editor) Kathryn Wilson Francis Wong Contact: [email protected] www.nswccl.org.au/unswccl UNSWCCL Submission to Consultation on Double Jeopardy Bill Acknowledgments The draft Criminal Appeal Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2003 (NSW) has been heavily influenced by the Criminal Justice Bill1 in the UK and law reform proposals in New Zealand.2 As a consequence members of UNSWCCL have surveyed and drawn upon the debate in those countries to inform this submission. This submission also acknowledges its indebtedness to the briefing paper released by the NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service.3 While that paper was useful for background information, it should be noted that UNSWCCL found many parts of it to be inaccurate and biased towards the pro-reform agenda. 1 Criminal Justice Bill 2002 (UK), Pt 10, clauses 69-87. 2 New Zealand Law Commission, Acquittal Following Perversion of the Course of Justice, Report 70 (2001). 3 Rowena Johns, Double Jeopardy (2003) NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper No 16/03 Page (i) UNSWCCL Submission to Consultation on Double Jeopardy Bill Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................2 2.1 GENERAL COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 2.2 DIVISION 1 APPEALS...............................................................................................................3 2.3 DIVISION 2 APPEALS...............................................................................................................3 2.4 DIVISION 3: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .............................................................................4 2.5 BILL IS VULNERABLE TO LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE ..........4 2.6 DNA EVIDENCE .....................................................................................................................4 3. WHY DOUBLE JEOPARDY SHOULD BE RETAINED ........................................................5 3.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF FINALITY...............................................................................................5 3.2 CARROLL’S CASE IS NOT AN IMPETUS FOR REFORM ................................................................7 4. DIVISION 1: RETRIAL AFTER ACQUITTAL FOR VERY SERIOUS OFFENCES.........9 4.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................9 4.2 RETROSPECTIVITY: ALL PAST ACQUITTALS RENDERED CONDITIONAL...................................10 4.3 NO ONE SHALL BE THRICE TRIED?.........................................................................................11 4.4 VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE .......................................................................................................11 4.5 FRESH AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE .....................................................................................12 4.5.1 fresh ................................................................................................................................12 4.5.2 compelling ......................................................................................................................12 4.5.3 the evidence in Carroll’s case would not satisfy this test ...............................................12 4.6 TAINTED ACQUITTALS ..........................................................................................................13 4.6.1 ‘perversion of the course of justice’ is too broad ...........................................................13 4.6.2 the definition encompasses untainted acquittals.............................................................13 4.6.3 the acquitted could be innocent of the tainting but still face re-trial..............................14 4.6.4 more than perjury should be required ............................................................................14 4.6.5 other areas of concern....................................................................................................15 4.6.6 recommendations............................................................................................................15 4.7 INTERESTS OF JUSTICE ..........................................................................................................16 5. DIVISION 2: APPEAL OF ACQUITTALS AS OF RIGHT ..................................................17 5.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................17 5.2 HIGH RISK OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE...............................................................................17 5.3 THESE APPEALS SHOULD BE BY LEAVE AND NOT AS OF RIGHT ..............................................18 5.4 INHERENT UNFAIRNESS.........................................................................................................18 5.5 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE DYNAMIC OF JUDGE-ONLY TRIALS .......................................19 6. DIVISION 3: MISCELLANEOUS............................................................................................20 6.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................20 6.2 AUTHORISATION OF POLICE INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................20 6.2.1 retrospective authorisation of police investigations .......................................................20 6.2.2 ‘any forensic procedure’.................................................................................................20 6.2.3 there is no limit to number of re-investigations ..............................................................21 6.2.4 there are insufficient safeguards.....................................................................................21 6.3 RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATION ...........................................................................................21 6.3.1 media coverage and a fair trial ......................................................................................22 6.3.2 a jury direction would be inadequate .............................................................................23 6.3.3 effect of the passage of time............................................................................................23 6.3.4 power of the press...........................................................................................................23 6.3.5 conclusion....................................................................................................................... 24 6.4 BAIL .....................................................................................................................................24 Page (ii) UNSWCCL Submission to Consultation on Double Jeopardy Bill 7. THE BILL ALTERS THE PRINCIPLED ASYMMETRY OF CRIMINAL LAW .............25 7.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................25 7.2 WHAT IS PRINCIPLED ASYMMETRY?......................................................................................25 7.3 APPEALS OF CONVICTION......................................................................................................26 7.3.1 brief history.....................................................................................................................26 7.3.2 current appeals by defence .............................................................................................27 7.3.3 current appeals by Crown ..............................................................................................27 7.4 WHERE THE DRAFT BILL FAILS.............................................................................................28 7.5 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT.............................................................................................................28 7.6 FRESH AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE .....................................................................................28 7.7 REASONABLE DILIGENCE ......................................................................................................29 7.8 THE PROVISO........................................................................................................................30 7.8.1 impact on the presumption of innocence ........................................................................30 7.9 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................31 8. DRAFT BILL IS CHALLENGEABLE ....................................................................................32 8.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE: ASPECTS OF THE BILL ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL..................32 8.1.1 Commonwealth jurisdiction over the NSW Parliament ..................................................32 8.1.2 retrospectivity .................................................................................................................32