Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Bill Stefaniak thinks we don’t need Double Jeopardy laws

By johnboy 8 September 2006 9

Bill Stefaniak has put out a media release asking why the Government can’t take as many bites at the cherry as it likes against people it wants to lock up.

“Double jeopardy is an anachronism in modern times. Why shouldn’t someone who is guilty of extremely serious crimes such as murder, be tried again when there is new and compelling evidence”

Maybe because we don’t trust you and your kind Bill?

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Bill Stefaniak thinks we don’t need Double Jeopardy laws
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
cleo 11:57 pm 01 Dec 09

What about the appeals that crimals can have if they aren’t happy with the out come of the trial? This could go on for at least five years after trial, so unfair!

Edward Carson 8:17 pm 24 Sep 06

A lot of angry cussers on this forum. I find it surprising how people can tolerate a criminal system where probably murderers, rapists and you-name-it are allowed to walk free because of a technicality in the law. If an innocent really does find him/herself being repeatedly brought to trial by a malicious prosecutor then a writ of malicious prosecution is a simple and profitable response.
Check out this site for reasons to get rid of double jeopardy.

Mr_Shab 12:37 pm 11 Sep 06

Amen, bonfire.

The whole thing reeks of chest-beating.

bonfire 12:30 pm 11 Sep 06

fuck dna – its just evidence. the same as a new witness, a photo, a voice recording, a prisoner recounting a gaolhouse confession to reduce his own term.

its the principel that matters. the state presents its case – loses.

how many times shoudl the same person be tried ?

2 ?

3 ?

why not keep going until the result you want is achieved.

no system is perfect which is why guilty peopel sometimes walk, but id rather 1 guilty person walked than 1 innocent person got locked up.

Big Al 10:30 am 11 Sep 06

DNA evidence is indeed a problematic matter – I get the impression that people convicted of an offence can seek a re-trial if new DNA evidence comes to light that may demonstrate their innocence – but I’m guess that would most commonly apply to cases heard a fair while ago when DNA evidence was not a common form of evidence.

I suspect that this is a it of a good old fashioned “law and order” beat up by State politicians trying to show how hairy chested they can be. Think about it … would removing double jeopardy rules create a situation where the Crown would no longer bother with presenting its best evidence – as it could always return to the courts when it felt like it? I doubt it.

Also … where’s the overwhelming list of examples that warrant some form of legislative response?

bonfire 9:58 am 11 Sep 06

i disagree.

the state makes a cse and presents its evidence.

i defend myself.

soem time later some new evidence – which may have existed at the first trial, but was not presented, is used for a new trial against me.

this is simply wrong and will be abused if adopted.

why cant they adopt the scottish not proven concept.

vg 8:22 pm 09 Sep 06

I am not for continuous trials with the same eveidence. However if evidence comes to light down the track which wasn’t available or apparent at the time then perhaps (and a big perhaps) there should be the possibility of some judicial review. Having said that it shoudn’t be carte blanche.

Case in point being the revelations in DNA. I iamagine there would be some cases that would now have the evidence of guilt with DNA analysis being available. Who knows what else may arise in the future.

My approval of this is conditional. No continual retrials just for shits and giggles, but maybe (big maybe) there should be some scope to re-try serious matters in line with the above. The law should move in line with technological developments.

DVD 1:37 pm 09 Sep 06

Muppets. Why shouldn’t there be legislation allowing someone to be prosecuted more than once if there is new evidence suggesting their guilt ?

There are endless ways shit heads can appeal decisions through the Court system or get some smart ass defence lawyer to raise something trivial and push for a re-trial.

The current system champions the rights of defendants. It’s a joke.

Big Al 8:53 pm 08 Sep 06

Double jeopardy is an anachronism in modern times. I wonder why Big Bill restricts his list of ‘anachronisms to just double jeopardy? Surely other outdated concepts like trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, an independent judiciary and rules of evidence can be dispensed with…

I suspect that the fat prick could have put it better than … “Why shouldn’t someone who is guilty of extremely serious crimes such as murder, be tried again when there is new and compelling evidence” you’d imagine that even a washed-up second rate ex-solicitor like Fat Boywould spot the stupidity of that statement.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site