Double Jeopardy Cases
📌 What Is Double Jeopardy?
Legal rule: Once a person has been acquitted or convicted of a crime, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence.
Purpose: Protects individuals from harassment, multiple prosecutions, and abuse of state power.
Found in many constitutions, statutes, and international human rights laws.
Exceptions exist in some jurisdictions (e.g., new evidence, different charges).
⚖️ Important Case Law on Double Jeopardy
1. Blockburger v. United States (1932, US Supreme Court)
Facts: Defendant charged for two drug offenses based on the same act.
Issue: Whether two charges constituted the "same offence" under double jeopardy.
Ruling: Established the “same elements” test: If each offence requires proof of a fact the other does not, then both can be prosecuted.
Takeaway: Clarified the test to determine whether double jeopardy applies.
2. R v. Crown Court at Manchester, ex parte Evans (1998, UK)
Facts: Evans was acquitted of murder; later new evidence emerged.
Issue: Whether retrial was barred by double jeopardy.
Ruling: Court held that retrial could proceed if “new and compelling evidence” emerges (under the Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Takeaway: UK law allows exceptions to double jeopardy for serious offences with new evidence.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006, India Supreme Court)
Facts: Accused acquitted due to lack of evidence; prosecution appealed.
Issue: Whether the acquittal bars retrial.
Ruling: Supreme Court ruled that if acquittal is based on appreciation of evidence, retrial is barred unless there is a statutory provision.
Takeaway: Indian courts protect acquittals unless overturned on appeal.
4. United States v. Dixon (1993, US Supreme Court)
Facts: Dixon faced charges for the same conduct under federal and state laws.
Issue: Whether double jeopardy applies to different sovereigns.
Ruling: Affirmed the “dual sovereignty” doctrine: separate sovereigns (state and federal) can prosecute for the same act.
Takeaway: Double jeopardy applies within one jurisdiction, not across separate sovereigns.
5. S v. Thebus (2003, South Africa Constitutional Court)
Facts: Defendant faced a retrial after previous acquittal.
Issue: Whether double jeopardy prohibits retrial.
Ruling: Court recognized retrial can be allowed only in exceptional circumstances where fairness demands it.
Takeaway: South Africa balances fairness and finality, allowing narrow exceptions.
6. DPP v. H (2004, UK House of Lords)
Facts: Defendant acquitted of rape; prosecution sought retrial due to new DNA evidence.
Issue: Can retrial be allowed despite double jeopardy?
Ruling: House of Lords confirmed retrial permissible for serious crimes with new evidence under 2003 law.
Takeaway: Modern legislation permits exceptions balancing justice and rights.
📍 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blockburger (1932) | USA | Same elements test | Defines “same offence” for double jeopardy |
| Evans (1998) | UK | Retrial with new evidence | Exception for serious crimes with compelling evidence |
| Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) | India | Acquittal finality | Acquittal on merits generally bars retrial |
| US v. Dixon (1993) | USA | Dual sovereignty | Different sovereigns can prosecute same act |
| S v. Thebus (2003) | South Africa | Retrial exceptions | Retrial allowed only in exceptional fairness cases |
| DPP v. H (2004) | UK | New DNA evidence & retrial | Retrial allowed under modern statute |
⚖️ Key Takeaways:
Double jeopardy protects finality in criminal law, but exceptions exist, especially for serious crimes with new evidence.
Courts use tests like “same elements” to determine if offences are the same.
Different jurisdictions balance protection from harassment with the public interest in justice differently.
The dual sovereignty doctrine means one act can sometimes lead to multiple prosecutions by different governments.
Modern laws increasingly allow limited retrials to address miscarriages of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments