Abstract
The government's latest proposals for double jeopardy law reform leave many unanswered questions and causes for concern regarding their scope and impact. However, the merits of such proposals can only be properly evaluated by viewing them in the broader context of constitutional criminal procedure. It is contended that the true significance of the double jeopardy prohibition is rooted in the constitutional value of the finality of acquittals. Two further supposed rationales for the prohibition, drawn from the Law Commission's recent analysis, are canvassed and conclusively rejected. The common law's ancient ban on double jeopardy is underpinned neither by the well-motivated desire to avoid distressful trials, nor by the promotion of investigative efficiency. Further reform debates would be facilitated by general assent to this clarification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.