Are you making this up as you go along. I have provided a cite from a law dictionary for my post. What do you have to support your post... nothing..its absolute rubbish
David, please try and understand what you are cutting and pasting before you do so.
The presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court is a facet of law which has been mentioned on here before.
It is encomapassed in:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights & Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
So if a suspect is brought to a court on charges and they are found not guilty they are acquitted in the eyes of the law they are "innocent" of those particular charges.
Their status of "innocent" must remain as they have not been proven guilty. Correct?
To aquit means to formally certifiy that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned.
Then we move on to the idea of being brought to trial a second time on different charges. That is called double jeopardy.
Under double jeopardy rules a person cannot be tried for the same offense a second time. However in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 retrials may be ordered if "new and compelling evidence" comes to light after an acquittal for a serious crime.
Here's the detail on the CPS website:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrial_of_serious_offences/Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) reforms the law relating to double jeopardy, by permitting retrials in respect of a number of very serious offences, where new and compelling evidence has come to light. Previously, the law did not permit a person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence to be retried for that same offence.
There are two principles arising from the common law which prevent this. The first is known as autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. These principles provide a bar to a trial, in respect of the same offence, of a person who has previously been either acquitted or convicted of that offence. The second arose where the courts considered it an abuse of process for additional charges to be brought, following an acquittal or conviction, for different offences which arose from the same behaviour or facts (there were exceptions to this rule).
The law has been reformed to permit a retrial in cases of serious offences where there has been an acquittal in court, but compelling new evidence has subsequently come to light which indicates that an acquitted person was in fact guilty. Examples of new evidence might include DNA or fingerprint tests, or new witnesses to the offence coming forward.
The measures amend the law in relation to re-investigation of persons acquitted of serious offences in these circumstances, to enable the prosecuting authorities to apply to the Court of Appeal for an acquittal to be quashed, and for a retrial to take place where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the new evidence is a compelling indication of the acquitted person's guilt.
They provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment of acquitted persons in cases where there is not genuinely new evidence, by requiring the personal consent of the DPP both to the re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to the Court of Appeal. The DPP will take into account both the strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is appropriate. For further information see the Legal Guidance on Consents to Prosecute.
The new procedures apply only in respect of serious offences. They are listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the 2003 Act (see Annex A).
So when you think (rather than cut and paste) there is no legal mechanism for suspects to be found guilty of an offence they have been previously acquitted for, bar the exemption in the Criminal Justice Act for a retrial for serious offences.
So if someone is acquitted they are effectively "innocent" in the eyes of the law, and unless it is a serious case, they can not be found guilty on those self same charges.
They may be charged on different charges or if new evidence comes to light.
Which is precisely what i said in my previous post.
Now you might actually benefit from actually composing yourself and engaging in constructive and interesting discussion rather than simply chasing me round this forum like some little puppy dog with steam coming out of your ears.
It's not a good look, Dave, and it contributes nothing to the forum.
