ipl-logo

Double Jeopardy Case Study

1291 Words6 Pages

NAME: PETER KOIRA KIMANI

REGISTRAION NUMBER: LAW/M/1030/09/14

INSTITUTION: KABARAK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

COURSE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TAKE AWAY ASSIGNMENT

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: DR.CHARLES A. KHAMALA

COMMENCEMENT: 23 JUNE 2015; CONCLUSION 14 JULY 2013

Double jeopardy is the fact of being prosecuted or sentenced twice for substantially the same offence. It can also be described as a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction or multiple punishments for same offense. Double Jeopardy is afforded not only by the pleas in the bar of (autrefois acquit, autrefois convict), but also judicial discretion to stay proceedings as abuse as abuse of process. This was the position held by the court in the case of Connelly v DPP {1964} …show more content…

The petitioner was subsequently arrested with the offence of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to Section 313 of the Penal Code. He invoked the principle of autrofois convict which the court dismissed by stating, that it is generally agreed that proceedings before the Committee relate to “professional misconduct, which expression includes disgraceful or dishonourable conduct incompatible with the status of an advocated” – Section 60 of the Advocates Act. Criminal prosecutions on the other hand relate to the “determination of the guilt or innocence of a person charged with crime” .
Origin of The Double Jeopardy Rule
It is believed that ancient Jewish law contained references to principles encompassed by double jeopardy. The Greek and roman law contained laws that prohibited the prosecution from subjecting individuals to trials through the double jeopardy rule. The Canon law is said to have largely contributed to the growth of the double jeopardy rule through a reading in the verse given in the old by Saint Jerome in 391, entered canon law as early as 847.
English Common

Open Document