R v Carroll

Last updated

R v Carroll
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe Queen v Raymond John Carroll
Decided5 December 2002
Citation(s)(2002) 213 CLR 635 [1]
Case history
Prior action(s)R v Carroll (1985) 19 A Crim R 410 - original murder trial [2] - perjury trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland [3] - Queensland Court of Appeal decision
Subsequent action(s)none
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow & Hayne JJ
Case opinions
(5:0) the perjury proceedings should have been stayed, as the Queensland Court of Appeal ordered, because the new trial breached the principle of double jeopardy, and was an abuse of process (per curiam)

R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 is a decision of the High Court of Australia which unanimously upheld the decision by a Queensland appellate court [4] to stay an indictment for perjury as the indictment was found to controvert the respondent's earlier acquittal for murder. The court held that charging Raymond John Carroll with perjuring himself in the earlier murder trial by swearing he did not kill the baby Deidre Kennedy was tantamount to claiming he had committed the murder and was thus a contravention of the principles of double jeopardy. The case caused widespread public outcry and prompted calls for double jeopardy law reform.

Contents

Background

In October 1983, Carroll was interviewed by the police in relation to the murder of Deidre Kennedy, a baby whose body had been found on the roof of a toilet block in Ipswich, Queensland, in April 1973. A post-mortem at the time had determined Deidre died of strangulation. During the post-mortem bite marks and bruises were noted on the baby's legs and it was these marks which led police to charge Carroll over the murder, as odontological evidence matched the marks with Carroll's teeth. Carroll was charged with murder.

The murder trial started on 18 February 1985. The prosecution's case was that the teeth marks on Deidre's body were made by Carroll, that he had a propensity for biting small children on the legs and that his alibi was false. Carroll claimed he was at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia at the time of Deidre's death. The jury found him guilty of murder, but the conviction was quashed on appeal. The court of appeal found that the prosecution had led no evidence to disprove Carroll's claim that he was not in Ipswich at the time of the death, that the evidence relating to Carroll's propensity to bite children's legs was prejudicial and inadmissible and that a jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the odontological evidence presented by the prosecution.

Perjury trial

By 1999 the police had received substantial new evidence in relation to the case. A witness had come forward who placed Carroll in Ipswich at the time of the killing, another witness claimed Carroll had admitted to him in jail that he had killed Deidre and further evidence relating to the teeth marks was obtained. Carroll was charged with perjury on 12 February 1999. The indictment presented against Carroll claimed he had perjured himself at the 1985 murder trial by swearing he did not kill Deidre Kennedy. In November 2000 a jury convicted him of perjury. Carroll appealed against this conviction.

Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal

The Queensland appeal court upheld Carroll's appeal. They found the perjury trial was in essence a re-trial of the original murder trial and that the prosecution case amounted to an abuse of process that contravened principles of double jeopardy. While the court applied an earlier decision by the Queensland Supreme Court, R v El-Zarw, which held that a prosecution such as this would not be an abuse of process if there was substantial new evidence, they found that the evidence presented by the prosecution in the perjury trial was not substantial. The prosecution appealed against this decision.

High Court of Australia

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that a conviction for perjury would inevitably controvert Carroll's previous acquittal for murder and was thus inconsistent with double jeopardy principles. The High Court also ruled that this principle applied whether or not substantial new evidence had come to light, overruling Queensland authority to that effect. The courts ruling in this case was due to technicality which was established to prevent double jeopardy

Public response

There was widespread public outcry following this decision. The general perception was that a person who had been found guilty by two juries of murdering a baby had "got off" on a "legal technicality". [5]

Then-Queensland premier Peter Beattie stated that "there was an injustice done in this case". [6] New South Wales premier Bob Carr began a law reform process [7] and the Victorian attorney general, Rob Hulls canvassed the possibility of legislative change.

The Kennedy family told their side of the story in a 2003 ABC Australian Story episode, "Double Bind". [8]

Carroll gave his side of the story in a 60 Minutes interview in 2006. [ citation needed ]

The double jeopardy law has since been changed through the Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Act 2007 (Qld).

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Fuhrman</span> American former police detective

Mark Fuhrman is a former detective of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He is primarily known for his part in the investigation of the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in the O. J. Simpson murder case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries,[which?] like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

Melvin Henry Ignatow was a resident of Louisville, Kentucky, who was tried for the 1988 murder of his former girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaefer. The case was controversial since Ignatow was acquitted of the charge, but later admitted to killing Schaefer. Under the legal principle of double jeopardy, however, Ignatow could not be tried a second time for the murder. He was instead convicted and jailed for several instances of perjury in his grand jury testimony for the case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the protection from double jeopardy by the federal government. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for the same charge. In this case, the court ruled that despite the error of the District Judge, the 5th Amendment protected the defendants from facing a second trial for the same charge.

<i>Bigby v. Dretke</i>

Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World's End Murders</span> Crime in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1977

The World's End Murders is the colloquial name given to the murder of two girls, Christine Eadie, 17, and Helen Scott, 17, in Edinburgh, in October 1977. The case is so named because both victims were last seen alive leaving The World's End pub in Edinburgh's Old Town. The only person to stand trial accused of the murders, Angus Sinclair, was acquitted in 2007 in controversial circumstances. Following the amendment of the law of double jeopardy, which would have prevented his retrial, Sinclair was retried in October 2014 and convicted of both murders on 14 November 2014. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years, the longest sentence by a Scottish court, meaning he would have been 106 years old when he was eligible for a potential release on parole. He died at HM Prison Glenochil aged 73 on 11 March 2019. Coincidentally, he died on the same day the BBC's Crimewatch Roadshow programme profiled the murders.

United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes." The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of Appeals read the holding in Grady v. Corbin (1990) too broadly.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Sir Colman Maurice Treacy is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. Previously, he was a barrister in Birmingham. He presided over a number of criminal trials, including those of an Afghan warlord, Faryadi Sarwar Zardad, and two of the killers of Stephen Lawrence.

John Harris Byrne is a retired Australian jurist who previously served as Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Having been a judge of that court since 1989, he was one of the court's most experienced judges. He was also Chair of the National Judicial College of Australia, a body which provides programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia. He is now a private Commercial Arbitrator.

United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the U.S. Const., Amend. V protection against double jeopardy did not prevent a retrial of a defendant, who had previously requested a mistrial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Babes in the Wood murders (Brighton)</span> Murder of two girls near Brighton in 1986

The Babes in the Wood Murders were the murders of two nine-year-old girls, Nicola Fellows and Karen Hadaway, on 9 October 1986, by a 20-year-old local roofer, Russell Bishop in Wild Park, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, Sussex, England. Bishop was tried and acquitted in 1987. The case remained open until 10 December 2018, when Bishop was found guilty of the murders in a second trial. The investigation into the two girls' murders is the largest and longest-running inquiry ever conducted by Sussex Police.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court decision that clarified both the scope of the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the limits of an appellate court's discretion to fashion a remedy under section 2106 of Title 28 to the United States Code. It established the constitutional rule that where an appellate court reverses a criminal conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Double Jeopardy Clause shields the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. Notwithstanding the power that appellate courts have under section 2106 to "remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances," a court that reverses a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence may not allow the lower court a choice on remand between acquitting the defendant and ordering a new trial. The "only 'just' remedy" in this situation, the Court held, is to order an acquittal.

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the appropriate test for determining whether a criminal defendant has been "goaded" by the prosecution's bad actions into motioning for a mistrial. This matters because the answer determines whether a defendant can be retried. Ordinarily, a defendant who requests a mistrial can be forced to stand trial a second time, see United States v. Dinitz. However, if the prosecution's conduct was "intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial," double jeopardy protects the defendant from retrial. The Court emphasized that only prosecutorial actions where the intent is to provoke a mistrial — and not mere "harassment" or "overreaching" — trigger the double jeopardy protection.

Michael Weir is a British double murderer and serial burglar who was the first person in British history to have been convicted of the same crime twice. In 1999, he was jailed for the murder of 78-year-old war veteran Leonard Harris. Weir's conviction was quashed a year later at the Court of Appeal on a technicality, only for him to be re-convicted in 2019 in a 'double jeopardy' case after new evidence was found. Weir was also convicted in 2019 of the murder of 83-year-old Rose Seferian, who was also killed during a burglary five weeks after Harris, which made additional history as the first time a second murder charge was added to a double jeopardy case. Upon Weir's conviction at the Old Bailey in December 2019, judge Justice McGowan told the jury that they had made "legal history".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Jacqueline Montgomery</span> English 1975 child murder

The murder of Jacqueline Montgomery, a 15-year-old girl from Islington, North London, United Kingdom, occurred on 1 June 1975. She was murdered by Dennis McGrory, her aunt's 28-year-old estranged partner, who was described at his trial as being "wild with rage" when he sexually assaulted, stabbed, and strangled Montgomery at her family home in Offord Road.

References

  1. [2002 HCA 55], austlii.edu.au. Accessed July 10, 2023.
  2. R v Carroll [2000] QSC 308, austlii.edu. Accessed 10 July 2023.
  3. R v Carroll [2001] QCA 394, austlii.edu.au. Accessed 10 July 2023.
  4. Queensland appellate court decision upheld by High Court of Australia, austlii.edu.au. Accessed 10 July 2023.
  5. Public outcry over Carroll appeal verdict, theage.com.au. Accessed 10 July 2023.
  6. The Australian, 11 February 2003.
  7. Law reform, lawreform.ie. Accessed 10 July 2023. Archived 19 November 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  8. Kennedy family account, abc.net.au. Accessed 10 July 2023.