Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ind: Man accused of murdering woman is first to face double jeopardy law

6 views
Skip to first unread message

tamsu...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 3:43:43 AM11/11/05
to
Man accused of murdering woman is first to face double jeopardy law

By Helen McCormack

The Independent
Published: 11 November 2005

A man accused of murdering a woman in 1989 has become the first person
in Britain to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal following
reform of the double jeopardy law.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said yesterday
that Billy Dunlop, 42, who has twice stood trial for the murder of a
22-year-old woman in 1989, is now likely to have his case referred to
the Court of Appeal to be considered for a third time.

At each previous trial, in which Mr Dunlop was accused of murdering
Julie Hogg in Billingham, Teesside, concluded with the jury failing to
reach a verdict.

The DPP said that Mr Dunlop's case could be sent to the Court of
Appeal, making it the first case since the reform of the double
jeopardy law, which for 800 years stopped a suspect being tried twice
for the same crime.

Mr Macdonald's decision means the Crown Prosecution Service can apply
to the Court of Appeal for Mr Dunlop to be retried for murder. He said:
"It falls to me to authorise a police investigation and to give my
written consent for a case to be referred to the Court of Appeal if
certain conditions are met, including that there is new and compelling
evidence and that it is in the public interest.'' The reform of the
double jeopardy rule, which stipulated that someone who has been
acquitted couldnot be tried again for the same offence, came into force
in April this year under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.

Mr Dunlop was formally acquitted at Newcastle Crown Court in 1991 when
a jury failed to reach a verdict for the second time.

Ms Hogg was a pizza delivery girl whose disappearance in November 1989
was initially treated as a missing person inquiry. Her mother, Ann
Ming, discovered Ms Hogg's body behind a bath panel in her daughter's
home 80 days later.

Mrs Ming has campaigned for 14 years for the double jeopardy rule to be
revoked, and the Law Commission reviewed it in 2001. It led to MPs
agreeing to the new legislation, which allows the CPS to review serious
cases if new evidence comes to light.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article326338.ece

Robbie

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 5:11:17 AM11/11/05
to

The guy will be in jeopardy - after being formally acquitted he
subsequently confessed to her murder. Part of the "new evidence" that
the DPP have submitted to the Court Of Appeal is his confession. I can't
remember if he admitted it to the local TV or local newspaper but it got
widespread coverage at the time.

Robbie

Alex

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 5:17:54 AM11/11/05
to

<tamsu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1131698622....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

I remember this disturbing case, sure the police are not looking forward to
having a court again pick over why they failed to locate the body after
searching the house. For the body to remain there for nearly 3 months
undetected was bizarre - I seem to recall the house was empty otherwise the
smell would have been overpowering.

Like most I have my doubts over the removal of the double jeopardy rule, but
Dunlop would be a prime candidate for a retrial as many suspect he is
guilty - and has never been acquitted 'normally' by a jury. Wonder why Sion
Jenkins wasn't acquitted in that way after his second retrial...


Robbie

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 5:23:59 AM11/11/05
to

Dunlop subsequently confessed to murdering Ms Hogg, after his formal
acquittal of course. At the time he expected that he would never be
retried for this offence, though I believe his confession was either to
the local TV or local newspaper.

Robbie

Robbie

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 6:33:38 AM11/11/05
to

I've just remembered something else about this particular case. Later,
after his acquittal, Dunlop was charged with, and convicted of, perjury
relating to the same case, receiving a lengthy prison sentence (6
years). I wonder if that conviction can be brought into open court, if
there is a retrial?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/3235726.stm

25/11/2003

Mother's hope over law change

A mother who has campaigned for 14 years to convict her daughter's
killer is hoping a law change will lead to a new trial.

Julie Hogg, 22, from Billingham, Teesside, went missing in 1989 and her
body was eventually found behind her bath panel by her mother Ann Ming.

Her boyfriend, Billy Dunlop, was charged with her murder but juries at
two trials failed to reach a verdict and he was acquitted.

He later admitted killing Miss Hogg but the double jeopardy rule
prevented him from being tried again for murder and instead, was jailed
after pleading guilty to perjury.

The change in the double jeopardy ruling has been included in the new
Criminal Justice act which received Royal Assent on Friday.

Ann Ming hopes a change in the rule will help her daughter's case

Mrs Ming said she hoped the law would be implemented retrospectively.

But with the change in double jeopardy, Dunlop's confession would have
to be regarded as new evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service before a
further trial could take place.

Mrs Ming said: "The end is hopefully in sight... we haven't got
everything [we want] because he has not been charged yet with Julie's
murder, which is what we want.

"We want him sentenced for the crime he has confessed to which is the
killing of our daughter. Perjury was a poor substitute.

"When Dunlop confessed in court to the perjury, his defence barrister
said he had made British legal history, nobody had confessed in a court
of law after being acquitted.

"At that point I realised there was no test case, no guideline, so that
is what I took to the Home Secretary - use this case to set a precedent
and change the law retrospectively."

Mrs Ming said it had been a difficult 14 years for herself and her family.

She said: "Anyone who has had a child murdered would understand that all
you feel you can do is obtain justice for your child.

"For a man to be acquitted and then to be boasting that he had in fact
killed your daughter is a nightmare and we have had to live with that
because of an 800-year-old law."

A spokesman for Cleveland Police said they would be looking at any cases
where new evidence had come to light, to see whether the new law could
be applied.

Alex

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 7:50:43 AM11/11/05
to

"Robbie" <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3tjdt0F...@individual.net...

> Robbie wrote:
> I've just remembered something else about this particular case. Later,
> after his acquittal, Dunlop was charged with, and convicted of, perjury
> relating to the same case, receiving a lengthy prison sentence (6
> years). I wonder if that conviction can be brought into open court, if
> there is a retrial?
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/3235726.stm

So the perjury was saying in court that he didn't do it, it would seem.
Sounds like he may suffer the 6 years sentence for that (is he out?), and
then have a life sentence for murder afterwards, so maybe justice will be
done.


Richard Miller

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 1:15:39 PM11/11/05
to
In message <3tj92jF...@individual.net>, Robbie
<ngrob...@hotmail.com> writes

>>
>
>The guy will be in jeopardy - after being formally acquitted he
>subsequently confessed to her murder. Part of the "new evidence" that
>the DPP have submitted to the Court Of Appeal is his confession. I
>can't remember if he admitted it to the local TV or local newspaper but
>it got widespread coverage at the time.
>

Very canny of the authorities to choose this one as the first, then. It
makes it a lot more difficult for those of us who fundamentally object
to this change in the law to mount arguments as to why this guy should
not be tried again.
--
Richard Miller

Richard Miller

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 1:22:28 PM11/11/05
to
In message <3tjdt0F...@individual.net>, Robbie
<ngrob...@hotmail.com> writes

>Mrs Ming said she hoped the law would be implemented retrospectively.
>
>But with the change in double jeopardy, Dunlop's confession would have
>to be regarded as new evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service before
>a further trial could take place.
>
>Mrs Ming said: "The end is hopefully in sight... we haven't got
>everything [we want] because he has not been charged yet with Julie's
>murder, which is what we want.
>
>"We want him sentenced for the crime he has confessed to which is the
>killing of our daughter. Perjury was a poor substitute.
>
>"When Dunlop confessed in court to the perjury, his defence barrister
>said he had made British legal history, nobody had confessed in a court
>of law after being acquitted.
>
>"At that point I realised there was no test case, no guideline, so that
>is what I took to the Home Secretary - use this case to set a precedent
>and change the law retrospectively."

In the light of all of this, I suspect that his lawyers will be strongly
arguing abuse of process. The retrospectivity, the perjury trial and
sentence which would otherwise not have been pursued at all, or if
pursued would have led to a concurrent sentence, the time that has
passed since the crime and therefore the impossibility of mounting any
sort of defence (eg provocation, insanity/diminished responsibility) all
combine to make a fair trial in this case impossible.

Yet it seems clear that he dun it and got away with it, so it is hard to
argue that it would be deeply unjust if he were to be convicted and
sentenced. But it is virtually unique in that regard, and a bad basis
indeed for having changed the law.
--
Richard Miller

bigbrian

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 2:50:18 PM11/11/05
to

I don't think its a coincidence that his is the first case to be
brought. What better opportunity to showcase the "merits" of this
change than to bring back to court someone who's admitted their guilt
and got away with it. I hope somewhere along the line, his previous
confession to the crime is ruled inadmissable. Of course, you then
have to compile a jury who are unaware of it

Brian

Jeff Strickland

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 7:34:44 PM11/11/05
to

<tamsu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1131698622....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Man accused of murdering woman is first to face double jeopardy law
>
> By Helen McCormack
>
> The Independent
> Published: 11 November 2005
>
> A man accused of murdering a woman in 1989 has become the first person
> in Britain to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal following
> reform of the double jeopardy law.
>
> The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, said yesterday
> that Billy Dunlop, 42, who has twice stood trial for the murder of a
> 22-year-old woman in 1989, is now likely to have his case referred to
> the Court of Appeal to be considered for a third time.
>
> At each previous trial, in which Mr Dunlop was accused of murdering
> Julie Hogg in Billingham, Teesside, concluded with the jury failing to
> reach a verdict.
>
> The DPP said that Mr Dunlop's case could be sent to the Court of
> Appeal, making it the first case since the reform of the double
> jeopardy law, which for 800 years stopped a suspect being tried twice
> for the same crime.
>

Forgive my ignorance, but if the jury didn't reach a verdict, then the
defendant is not innocent or not guilty, and the prosecution is free to
refine its case and refile it without running afoul of double jeopardy
rules.

Double Jeopardy only says that if a defendant is found innocent (or not
guilty) -- basically, is acquitted -- then he can't be tried again on the
same crime using different evidence -- I assume there is no point in using
the same evidence again because it didn't work the first time, there's no
reason to think it will work a second time, but I suppose the same evidence
could come up again if there were no double jeopardy protections.


> Mr Macdonald's decision means the Crown Prosecution Service can apply
> to the Court of Appeal for Mr Dunlop to be retried for murder. He said:
> "It falls to me to authorise a police investigation and to give my
> written consent for a case to be referred to the Court of Appeal if
> certain conditions are met, including that there is new and compelling
> evidence and that it is in the public interest.'' The reform of the
> double jeopardy rule, which stipulated that someone who has been
> acquitted couldnot be tried again for the same offence, came into force
> in April this year under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
>
> Mr Dunlop was formally acquitted at Newcastle Crown Court in 1991 when
> a jury failed to reach a verdict for the second time.
>

Who acquitted a suspect that a jury couldn't find cause to acquit
themselves?

Something here isn't making any sense. The only reason I ask this is because
you have variously stated that the jury did not render a decision -- either
for guilt or acquital -- but now you are saying that somebody issued an
acquital. There is a conflict in the facts you have presented here.


Cynic

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 8:11:54 PM11/11/05
to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:15:39 +0000, Richard Miller
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>The guy will be in jeopardy - after being formally acquitted he
>>subsequently confessed to her murder. Part of the "new evidence" that
>>the DPP have submitted to the Court Of Appeal is his confession. I
>>can't remember if he admitted it to the local TV or local newspaper but
>>it got widespread coverage at the time.

>Very canny of the authorities to choose this one as the first, then. It
>makes it a lot more difficult for those of us who fundamentally object
>to this change in the law to mount arguments as to why this guy should
>not be tried again.

My thoughts exactly. A classic method to get controversial
legislation accepted. It might be difficult to find a *second* case
where the evidence is quite so clear-cut.

--
Cynic

Cynic

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 8:13:00 PM11/11/05
to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:50:43 -0000, "Alex"
<alex138...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>So the perjury was saying in court that he didn't do it, it would seem.
>Sounds like he may suffer the 6 years sentence for that (is he out?), and
>then have a life sentence for murder afterwards, so maybe justice will be
>done.

Justice in that one case perhaps. But at what cost to the justice
system in general?

--
Cynic

Isaac

unread,
Nov 12, 2005, 9:02:11 AM11/12/05
to

Perhaps you are applying US law to a non US case. While we might not
find this to be double jeapordy, perhaps under English law it would be.
It seems that after the mistrial, the judge declared the man to be not
guilty. That is not something that would happen in a US court.

> Double Jeopardy only says that if a defendant is found innocent (or not
> guilty) -- basically, is acquitted -- then he can't be tried again on the
> same crime using different evidence -- I assume there is no point in using
> the same evidence again because it didn't work the first time, there's no
> reason to think it will work a second time, but I suppose the same evidence
> could come up again if there were no double jeopardy protections.

The same evidence might work the second time with some effort to adjust
the presentation for the weak points pointed out by the defense. A jury
might have one member on it with some agenda that prevents him for voting
to convict. Next time, maybe work a little harder during jury selection.

Isaac

AlanG

unread,
Nov 12, 2005, 12:10:47 PM11/12/05
to
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:02:11 -0600, Isaac
<is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:34:44 -0800, Jeff Strickland <cr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>><tamsu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1131698622....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> Man accused of murdering woman is first to face double jeopardy law
>>>

>> Double Jeopardy only says that if a defendant is found innocent (or not

>> guilty) -- basically, is acquitted -- then he can't be tried again on the
>> same crime using different evidence -- I assume there is no point in using
>> the same evidence again because it didn't work the first time, there's no
>> reason to think it will work a second time, but I suppose the same evidence
>> could come up again if there were no double jeopardy protections.
>
>The same evidence might work the second time with some effort to adjust
>the presentation for the weak points pointed out by the defense. A jury
>might have one member on it with some agenda that prevents him for voting
>to convict. Next time, maybe work a little harder during jury selection.
>
>Isaac

Links to local news coverage of the story
http://archive.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/2002/5/20/134822.html
http://archive.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/2001/1/12/181847.html
http://archive.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/2001/11/15/154171.html

Jeff Strickland

unread,
Nov 12, 2005, 2:46:25 PM11/12/05
to

"Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
news:slrndnbtf3...@latveria.castledoom.org...


Agreed, but the same evidence would only be presented in the second trial if
the first trial resulted in a hung jury, a jury that could not render a
decision. If the jury rules for an acquital, there would be no second trial,
and the same evidence would not be presented.

And, yes, you're right, I'm applying American logic to British law, and this
might be a flawed application on my part.

fjm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2005, 6:55:59 AM11/13/05
to

Jeff Strickland wrote:

>
> Agreed, but the same evidence would only be presented in the second trial if
> the first trial resulted in a hung jury, a jury that could not render a
> decision. If the jury rules for an acquital, there would be no second trial,
> and the same evidence would not be presented.
>

You can be tried many, many times if the jury do not reach a decision.
There is no rule that any set number of failed trials leads to an
acquital, but a judge might rule (for any number of reasons) that any
further trials would be an abuse of process. I've personally seen N get
as high as 4 before a judge took action in this way.

> And, yes, you're right, I'm applying American logic to British law, and this
> might be a flawed application on my part.

The basic rule is the plea of "autrefois acquit" -- you can't be tried
for something you have already been acquited of. The rule had nothing
to do with the kind of evidence at either trial -- there I believe some
of the posters have been getting accused.

This rule has been modified with an exception, but one that is
difficult to invoke and only available for the most serious offences.

Francis

Jeff Strickland

unread,
Nov 13, 2005, 12:06:23 PM11/13/05
to

<fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131882959.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed, but the same evidence would only be presented in the second trial
>> if
>> the first trial resulted in a hung jury, a jury that could not render a
>> decision. If the jury rules for an acquital, there would be no second
>> trial,
>> and the same evidence would not be presented.
>>
>
> You can be tried many, many times if the jury do not reach a decision.
> There is no rule that any set number of failed trials leads to an
> acquital, but a judge might rule (for any number of reasons) that any
> further trials would be an abuse of process. I've personally seen N get
> as high as 4 before a judge took action in this way.
>

EXACTLY. But if there is no decision, then there is no violation of double
jeopardy. Double Jeopardy only exists when a defendant is found Not
Guilty -- or otherwise acquitted of the charges, then is tried again on the
same offense.

We have all heard of trials that did not lead to a decision either way, and
the prosecutor elected to not try the case again. I have not heard, or do
not remember hearing about, a case where the Judge said that the prosecutor
could not bring an undecided case back to court. That is, I suppose a
prosecutor could in theory bring the same case over and over again as long
as the jury is unable to render a verdict one way or the other to end the
case. In practice, a prosecutor would be ill advised to continue screwing up
his presentation so badly that a jury couldn't give a verdict in his favor.

I don't even think a judge can deny a prosecutor the ability to retry a case
that ended in no verdict. I do agree that if a prosecutor wants to retry,
then a judge can hear evidence and determine that the new case is materially
the same as the old one, and prevent the prosecutor from getting past the
preliminary hearings. But, this would not be an acquital of charges, would
it?

>> And, yes, you're right, I'm applying American logic to British law, and
>> this
>> might be a flawed application on my part.
>
> The basic rule is the plea of "autrefois acquit" -- you can't be tried
> for something you have already been acquited of. The rule had nothing
> to do with the kind of evidence at either trial -- there I believe some
> of the posters have been getting accused.
>

I follow that completely, but my question to the OP was where did th
eacquital come from? He first posted that the jury never came to a decision,
then he later posted that the judge gave the acquital. I was wondering how
the judge can acquit anybody, and barring an acquital, there is no violation
of Double Jeopardy. A defendant that has not been convicted can be tried as
many times as a prosecutor wants until there is decision one way or the
other.

tim (moved to sweden)

unread,
Nov 13, 2005, 12:20:14 PM11/13/05
to

"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zsydnS83O5wT7-re...@ez2.net...

>
> <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131882959.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>

> We have all heard of trials that did not lead to a decision either way,

> and the prosecutor elected to not try the case again. I have not heard, or
> do not remember hearing about, a case where the Judge said that the
> prosecutor could not bring an undecided case back to court. That is, I
> suppose a prosecutor could in theory bring the same case over and over
> again as long as the jury is unable to render a verdict one way or the
> other to end the case. In practice, a prosecutor would be ill advised to
> continue screwing up his presentation so badly that a jury couldn't give a
> verdict in his favor.
>
> I don't even think a judge can deny a prosecutor the ability to retry a
> case

The defense will make a claim of "abuse of process".
After a while the judge will agree.

tim


fjm...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 13, 2005, 1:20:38 PM11/13/05
to

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

>
> The defense will make a claim of "abuse of process".
> After a while the judge will agree.
>

Yes. A judge certainly can deny a prosecutor the right to come back the
N+1th time, and can also direct an acquital.

Francis

Cynic

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 10:58:16 AM11/14/05
to
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:02:11 -0600, Isaac
<is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:


>The same evidence might work the second time with some effort to adjust
>the presentation for the weak points pointed out by the defense. A jury
>might have one member on it with some agenda that prevents him for voting
>to convict. Next time, maybe work a little harder during jury selection.

There is *no* jury selection in a UK court. Also, a UK court can
convict if only 10 out of 12 jurors vote guilty, so a lone juror with
an agenda could *not* force a mistrial.

--
Cynic

0 new messages