Civil liberties group questions double jeopardy revamp

Revamped double jeopardy laws in Queensland have copped criticism, with a leading civil liberties group saying “two wrongs do not make a right”.

Double jeopardy laws are set to be expanded in Queensland, allowing people to be retried for another 10 offences such as manslaughter and rape.

Under a bill tabled to state parliament this week, the proposed laws also clarify the definition of fresh and compelling evidence that would apply to a double jeopardy retrial.

The family of Shandee Blackburn had been hopeful the new laws would help lead to a retrial for the 2013 murder of the 23-year-old along with the retesting of forensic evidence.

More than 100,000 samples might need to be retested after a second inquiry, which examined the state-run lab’s “fundamentally flawed” automated DNA extraction method used from 2007 to 2016 known as Project 13.

Almost 40,000 cases are already being reviewed.

However, the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said double jeopardy laws were designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

“A lot of the impetus for this legislation flows from DNA,” a QCCL statement said.

“But the reality is that DNA cannot be used to determinably prove someone’s guilt – it can only be used determinably to establish someone’s innocence.”

QCCL president Michael Cope said the prosecutors had the advantage of vastly more resources, and the double jeopardy rule was one of the ways the justice system rectified imbalances.

“Two wrongs do not make a right,” he said.

“Any change to the rule runs the risk that both a crime will have been committed and an innocent person is sent to jail.”

When the bill was tabled to parliament, Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath said the reforms enhanced the criminal justice system through mechanisms to “correct possible erroneous outcomes”.

“(The reforms) maintain balance in the criminal justice system, helping to ensure the guilty are convicted and the innocent are set free,” she said.

“The bill enhances the criminal justice system in relation to possible unjust acquittals by expanding the application of the fresh and compelling evidence double jeopardy exception to additional offences.”

But Mr Cope said the government needed to establish that the present system resulted in significant false acquittals before announcing the reforms, saying there was no evidence to support the claim.

“Wrongful acquittals are quite different from wrongful convictions as they do not involve the unconscionable incarceration of an innocent,” he said.

“And yet the government enacts these laws whilst refusing to introduce a Criminal Cases Review Commission to assess claims of wrongful conviction.”