❓ The Attorney General outlines the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011, explaining its key provisions regarding retrials based on fresh evidence or tainted acquittals for serious offences.
AnsweredQoN 575Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL APPEALS AMENDMENT (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) BILL 2011
Before I get to my question, I first recognise in the gallery the year 11 students from St Brigid’s College in Lesmurdie in the electorate of my esteemed colleague the member for Kalamunda. I understand that the Liberal–National government today introduced a bill that will make significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this state. Would the Attorney General please advise the house of the nature of this bill and its potential benefits? Mr C.C. PORTER
Before I get to my question, I first recognise in the gallery the year 11 students from St Brigid’s College in Lesmurdie in the electorate of my esteemed colleague the member for Kalamunda. I understand that the Liberal–National government today introduced a bill that will make significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this state. Would the Attorney General please advise the house of the nature of this bill and its potential benefits? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I understand that the Liberal–National government today introduced a bill that will make significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this state. Would the Attorney General please advise the house of the nature of this bill and its potential benefits? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I understand that the Liberal–National government today introduced a bill that will make significant reforms to the criminal justice system in this state. Would the Attorney General please advise the house of the nature of this bill and its potential benefits? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I thank the member for his question. Indeed, the Criminal Appeals Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2011 goes to the issue of double jeopardy. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, primarily because it must go off to a committee, where I hope it does not spend too long. It is a very, very important piece of legislation because it modifies a very longstanding rule, the rule against double jeopardy, of which everyone would have a basic conception. The double jeopardy rule is, in effect, the idea that someone should not be tried twice for the same offence. This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
This bill represents the end of a very long process of reform that began with the consideration of the case of Carroll in Queensland in which Mr Carroll was accused of murdering a 17-month-old baby named Deidre Kennedy. That baby was found on the roof of a toilet block, very sadly, in Ipswich, in 1973. She had been abducted, dressed in women’s underwear, sexually abused and strangled. A key piece of evidence that later emerged was a bite mark found on the baby’s left thigh. The original trial of Mr Carroll centred around forensic odontology on the bite mark. The ultimate outcome of the trial was that Mr Carroll was found not guilty. The jury could not be convinced to the requisite very high standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Forensic odontology developed very dramatically in the following 10 years and prosecutors considered that their case had fundamentally improved since the first trial because of computer-simulated use of dental markings and moulds from Mr Carroll’s mouth. A prosecution then ensued in Queensland against Mr Carroll for perjury. That prosecution was successful and the idea was to use the evidence to show that he lied at the first trial albeit it was not a second trial for murder. In effect, the prosecutors thought that was a way to get around the rule of double jeopardy. That trial was successful in determining Mr Carroll was guilty of perjury. The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
The decision was appealed, but the appeal was knocked back in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The case eventually went to the High Court and the High Court said that the prosecutors had tried to get around the rule of double jeopardy via charging for another offence on the same set of facts, and that if people want to change the law, they should do so. The law is now being changed in Western Australia, as has flowed through in other jurisdictions. It is a very important change and no doubt it will be debated in great detail. For the members present, the basis of this change is to provide that for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, a person can be tried twice for the same offence in certain circumstances. Fresh and compelling evidence emerging after the time of the first acquittal at trial will form the basis of one type of retrial. Another type of retrial will be when there is a tainted acquittal. When evidence emerges that some form of bribery or corruption, bullying or pressuring of a juror or a witness, or things of that nature, took place at the first trial, there can be a retrial. In both those circumstances, whether fresh and compelling evidence or tainted acquittals, the retrial will be allowed to occur only when the offence is a very serious matter. This legislation provides that the first trial must have been for a crime that attracts a term of imprisonment of more than 14 years. I have undertaken to provide to the shadow Attorney General a list of the types of offences that will entail. There are quite a few of them, but they are all very serious offences. Serious sexual offences, murders, manslaughters and offences of that nature will all fall within the auspices of this legislation. It is a very significant change. The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
The third change that will occur relates to administration of justice offences. If evidence later emerges that administration of justice offences, such as bribes or intimidation of jurors, took place in the first trial, which resulted in an acquittal, those offences can later be the subject of a separate prosecution. The prosecution would not be against the crime on which the accused was first acquitted, but for the secondary offence of, for instance, perjury. In those circumstances, those prosecutions will not be limited. Those prosecutions can be undertaken for any indictable offence. This bill provides for three very important and significant changes to the law. I can inform members of the answer to a question that I have been asked many times by the media this morning: are the police sitting on matters and waiting to reopen and reinvestigate those matters should this legislation succeed in both houses of Parliament? The best information I have had is that it is not the case that the police are sitting waiting for this legislation to be passed because of specific individual investigations that they would like to proceed with. That is not to say that in the ensuing years, if this legislation is passed, there may not be matters in which forensic evidence emerges that casts doubt on an original acquittal. I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
I look forward to speaking with the opposition about this legislation and to what will no doubt be a high quality of debate in the ensuing weeks.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.