D, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1354 (16 June 2006)

D, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 1354 (16 June 2006)

The existence of new and compelling evidence—D's confessions and guilty plea to perjury—justifies quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial for murder under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The interests of justice are served by a retrial, as delay and publicity do not preclude fairness, and D's reliance on the double jeopardy rule does not render the retrial unjust.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1354
Parties
Applicant: R; Respondent: D (William Vincent D)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial
Outcome
Application granted; acquittal quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Retrial After Acquittal, New and Compelling Evidence, Murder
Criminal Law Double Jeopardy Retrial After Acquittal New and Compelling Evidence Murder

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Applicant

D (William Vincent D)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Application to Quash Acquittal and Order Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new and compelling evidence exists to justify quashing an acquittal and ordering a retrial for murder under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to order a retrial given delay, publicity, and reliance on the double jeopardy rule

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of new and compelling evidence—D's confessions and guilty plea to perjury—justifies quashing the acquittal and ordering a retrial for murder under Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The interests of justice are served by a retrial, as delay and publicity do not preclude fairness, and D's reliance on the double jeopardy rule does not render the retrial unjust.

Court Disposition

Application granted; acquittal quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • D's acquittal for murder quashed
  • D to be retried for the murder of Julie H