ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner John Hinchey has slammed proposed changes to double jeopardy laws as so conservative they were "meaningless" and urged the territory government to make any reforms retrospective.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Attorney-General Simon Corbell announced on Monday he would table modified laws that would pave the way for retrials of acquitted people under special circumstances in the Legislative Assembly next year.
Double jeopardy prevents people being prosecuted a second time for an offence if they have already been acquitted.
Under the proposed changes to ACT law, retrials of serious cases after an acquittal would be allowed where fresh and compelling evidence emerged, if it could be proved the trial was tainted, or if a witness was found to have committed perjury.
Mr Hinchey said the government had taken "an extremely conservative approach" to the double jeopardy principle that was "so conservative that I think it renders the reforms meaningless".
He said the most "disturbing and disappointing" aspect of the reforms was that they would not be applied retrospectively, which meant people acquitted of decades-old crimes could not be retried if new and significant evidence emerged.
"It defeats the very nature of why we have reached an appetite in the community for reform of double jeopardy," Mr Hinchey said.
"Someone who has been acquitted in the past cannot be returned even if evidence comes to light that they are more than likely guilty of that crime."
He said the proposed changes sent a message to the community that an accused person's rights trumped a victim's rights, even when there was overwhelming evidence against them and urged the government to reconsider its position.
"I think that without applying these provisions into the past we are removing any chance of justice for these people and their families who experience the pain and trauma of serious offences."
Mr Corbell said the laws would be called upon in limited circumstances and only for crimes which carried a maximum sentence of life in prison, which took in murder and serious drug trafficking offences.
He was confident any changes would meet the requirements of the ACT's human rights legislation.
Mr Hinchey also believed the included offences should be broadened take in other serious crimes such as rape and manslaughter, in line with recommendations from the Council of Australian Governments in 2007.
ACT Law Society president Martin Hockridge said it was always a concern that an acquitted person could be retried for the same offence, but said compelling evidence on a serious matter could be grounds for a retrial.
"We can't have people getting away with blue murder," he said.
"But there would need to be real assurances of fresh evidence, not something that was retreaded.
"It really cannot be the prosecution having another go because they lost the first time."
Civil Liberties Australia vice president Tim Vines supported some changes to the laws provided there were some safeguards in place for acquitted people brought back before the courts.
He agreed any fresh evidence must meet a high threshold for a judge to grant a retrial. There should also be a provision for an individual put on trial again to seek legal costs.
Mr Vines suggested any changes to legislation that paved the way for retrials of acquitted people should be accompanied by a provision for convicted criminals to bring their case back to court on the basis of fresh evidence.
"If the prosecution gets another chance, so should a convicted individual."
