R v Dunlop
The first retrial ordered after a person had been acquitted of murder, under the double jeopardy exception in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Facts
In 1989 William Dunlop was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham. Two juries failed to agree, and he was formally acquitted in 1991. He later confessed to the murder, and he was convicted of perjury for having lied at his trials. Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 created an exception to the rule against double jeopardy for serious offences, allowing the Court of Appeal to quash an acquittal and order a retrial if there was new and compelling evidence and it was in the interests of justice. The Act applied to acquittals before it came into force.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed Dunlop's acquittal and ordered a retrial, the first time this had happened under the 2003 Act. His confessions were new and compelling evidence, because they were reliable, substantial and highly probative of the case against him, and a retrial was in the interests of justice. Lord Phillips CJ said that the exception to the double jeopardy rule must be applied cautiously, but that the new evidence was overwhelming. Dunlop pleaded guilty to murder at the retrial and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
