ACT Criminal Law
National Criminal Law
NSW Criminal Law
QLD Criminal Law
VIC Criminal Law
WA Criminal Law
My legal matter concerning an application for a Domestic Violence Order was managed by Mr Thomas Allen. I am grateful for the outcome he obtained. Without Mr Allen and his ongoing support, I would be certain of a different result. It has been an extremely stressful period. Mr Allen’s astute ability to liaise on my behalf and his expertise was invaluable and for which I am grateful as I am now able to move forward. Thanking you
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Armstrong Legal and specifically Mr Thomas Allen for representing me in my recent case. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr Allen for the very professional delivery of his legal service. From the first time that I met Mr Allen, I was very impressed with his demeanour and delivery as he made me feel at ease knowing the severity of my case. Mr Allen not only gave me the possible positive outcomes of the case but also the realisation of the worst-case scenario as far as sentencing goes. … I will certainly be recommending Armstrong Legal to any of my friends or family needing representation in criminal matters. Thank you so very much.
Thank you for your representation and help. Fingers crossed for the next step and parole. I just want to say that from the first phone call to your office, your service has been outstanding and have put my mind at ease. I am glad I picked your number to ring.
Thank you Armstrong Legal, the lawyers that have helped over the past 3 years but more importantly, thank you to Thomas Allen for the major part you and Mr Buckland played. Cannot thank you enough. Cheers.
Hi all. I would like to thank Ms Lisa Riley for all her help with my legal issues this past month. It was the most harrowing experience of my life and thanks to her expertise, professionalism and knowledge of the law, I came out almost unscathed. I have no hesitation in recommending Lisa Riley and Armstrong Legal if you need help. The service is amazing and the cost was very minimal for the great outcome. Thank you Lisa for helping me in the most difficult time.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. My whole life I was thrown away, you made me feel like I did mean something. I could not have asked for a better lawyer. Your compassion and love for your job is inspiring. Your upfront and honesty were muchly appreciated, you are a beautiful person. Thank you for not giving up on me and thank you for all the work you put in. I wish you all the best for the future and I will be recommending you to everyone I know. You're amazing!!!!
I just wanted to thank you for representing me on Monday, I was overjoyed & relieved with the outcome. I don’t think it could have gone any better. All the best, I hope you got to celebrate this one instead after work, you forever made a difference in my life.
I know I thanked you before we parted company but please allow me to reiterate in writing my sincere deepest thanks for defending me in court today. … Armstrong Legal certainly has a great Lawyer you are a credit to the company and I'm quite sure you will secure a very successful future! … My Kindest Regards and Thanks
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Double Jeopardy (Qld)
The maxim of “double jeopardy” means no one can be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The law is stated at section 17 of the Criminal Code Act 1899:
“It is a defence to a charge of any offence to show that the accused person has already been tried, and convicted or acquitted upon an indictment on which the person might have been convicted of the offence with which the person is charged, or has already been acquitted upon indictment, or has already been convicted, of an offence of which the person might be convicted upon the indictment or complaint on which the person is charged.”
The rationale for double jeopardy is that an accused person should have certainty that a matter is finalised and not fear ever being prosecuted again for the same offence. It also ensures police investigate crimes as thoroughly as possible so the best case is placed before a jury, given there is no second attempt allowed.
The Act contains very limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, as a result of the Double Jeopardy Amendment Act 2007. Prior to the amendments, there was no mechanism in Queensland for an acquitted person to be retried. The change was prompted by the High Court case of The Queen v Raymond John Carroll in 2002. In 1985 Carroll was convicted of the murder of baby Diedre Kennedy. The conviction was overturned on appeal. In 2000 he was convicted of perjury over his denial on oath given in evidence at his trial, with the Crown (prosecution) arguing there was new and reliable evidence to prove Carroll had murdered Kennedy. Carroll’s conviction was overturned on appeal, with the Court of Appeal stating the effect of the perjury trial was to try again the issue which was central to his trial for murder, and this was an abuse of process. The Crown unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court.
Chapter 68 of the Act contains very limited exceptions to the double jeopardy rule.
The court can order a retrial of an acquitted person for the offence of murder if:
- there is “fresh and compelling” evidence against the acquitted person; and
- in all the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice for the order to be made.
Evidence is “fresh” if it was not presented in the trial in which the person was acquitted, and it could not have been found without the exercise of reasonable diligence. Evidence is “compelling” if it is reliable, substantial and highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
The order can be made even if the person had been acquitted of a lesser offence.
The court can order an acquitted person to be retired for a “25-year offence” if:
- the acquittal is a “tainted acquittal”;
- in all the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice for the order to be made.
A “25-year offence” means an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years or more.
A “tainted acquittal” means the accused or someone else has been convicted of an administration of justice offence in relation in the matter, and it is more likely than not that the accused would have been convicted if not for that offence. An acquittal cannot be a tainted acquittal until any appeal of the conviction for the administration of justice offence has been decided.
Interests of justice
Before ordering a retrial of an acquitted person under a double jeopardy exception, the court must be satisfied a fair retrial is likely in the circumstances. The court must consider:
- the length of time since the acquitted person allegedly committed the offence;
- whether the police or prosecutor has failed to act with reasonable diligence or expedition in relation to the initial investigation and prosecution, and the application for retrial.
Applications for retrial
An application for a retrial under a double jeopardy exception is made to the court by the Department of Public Prosecutions. A hearing must be held to consider the application, and the accused is entitled to be present and heard at the hearing, whether or not they are in custody. However, the application can be decided if they are not present.
An indictment (written notice of the charge) must be presented within 2 months of the retrial order. The court can allow the prosecution to present the indictment after 2 months have passed only if it is satisfied the prosecutor acted reasonably and there is good and sufficient reason for the retrial despite the lapse of time.
If an indictment has not been presented within 2 months, the acquitted person can apply to have the retrial order set aside and the acquittal restored.
At a retrial under a double jeopardy exception, the prosecution is not entitled to state that the court has found that there is fresh and compelling evidence or that it is more likely than not that the accused would have been convicted if not for an administration of justice offence.
There is a presumption of bail for an acquitted person awaiting retrial.
Restrictions on publication
It is prohibited to publish any information with an aim to identify an acquitted person who is being retried. The prohibition ends when a court revokes it, when there is no longer any prospect of a retrial or when the retrial ends. A person who contravenes this law will be charged with contempt of the Supreme Court.
For advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
A control order is a court order to prevent, restrict or disrupt a person’s involvement in serious crime. It can…
Sentencing in Queensland is governed by the Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992. The sentencing court must take into account the…
In Queensland, the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 allows a court to order that property suspected of being the proceeds…
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
91 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
Nishi, 2 Phillip Law Street
Canberra ACT 2601
22 St Georges Terrace Perth