Can you be retried

In order for you to be convicted of a crime by a jury, all 12 members of the jury must agree that you are guilty.

At the same time, in order to be found not guilty of a crime by a jury, all 12 members of the jury must agree that you are not guilty. Their verdict must be unanimous. If a jury is unable to come up with a unanimous verdict, the Court will declare a mistrial.

A mistrial does not necessarily mean that the case is over. When a mistrial happens, the prosecution will decide whether they want to try you once again for the same crime.

The decision about whether the state will try you again for the same crime is a decision that rests with the prosecution. From experience, prosecutors will take a variety of factors into consideration when deciding whether to have another trial.

However, everyone who receives the baptism God filling this person with himself of the Holy Spirit receives the gift of tongues. Not everyone, who receives the baptism God filling this person with himself of the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues. Speaking in tongues stimulates faith and helps us learn how to trust God more fully.

For example, faith must be exercised to speak with tongues because the Holy Spirit specifically directs the words we speak. We have to trust God for that. Can Speaking in Tongues be Taught? Speaking in tongues can not be taught because every spirit filled believer has their own unique prayer language.

This language comes from the Holy Spirit, not from man. A hung jury is not among those events that courts consider to terminate jeopardy.

Therefore, when there is a hung jury, courts have defined a retrial as permissible on the basis that it does not trigger a second state of jeopardy—it merely continues the original state of jeopardy. Learn more about how government officials have weakened the protective role of the jury by narrowing down the prohibition against double jeopardy as it was originally intended by visiting the section on double jeopardy in FIJA's FAQ. In criminal proceedings generally, where the police arrest and charge a person or obtain a warrant from a Justice of the Peace, the first court appearance is in the magistrates' court.

However, under these provisions the first appearance is in the Crown Court. Where the police wish to arrest the acquitted person as part of the investigation, having obtained the DPP's consent under section 85 2 , they must in addition obtain a warrant from a Justice of the Peace under section 87 1 a Archbold Where the investigative steps did not initially include arrest of the acquitted person, but consisted of other steps such as a search of premises , the police may now wish to arrest the acquitted person.

Again, they must obtain a warrant from a Justice of the Peace under section 87 1 a. A JP may only issue a warrant under section 87 1 a if satisfied on written information that new evidence has been obtained which would be relevant to an application for a "section 77 order". A warrant cannot be issued where the police have reasonably grounds to believe that new evidence is likely to be obtained. This means that the police need a warrant before they can arrest an acquitted person.

Part 10 of the Act has its own charging procedures and the statutory charging procedures under Part 4 of the Act do not apply. If a warrant is issued and the acquitted person is arrested, then it is for s superintendent or above who has not been involved in the investigation to decide whether there is enough evidence to charge the acquitted person. There is sufficient evidence if, and only if, the superintendent or above is of the opinion that the evidence available or known to him is sufficient for the case to be referred to a prosecutor the DPP to consider whether consent should be sought for an application for a retrial to the Court of Appeal section 37 7 PACE as modified by section 87 6 d.

After charge section 38 of PACE applies, which provides that the custody officer must release the accused on bail, subject to section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act as amended , unless the exceptions apply as set out in section 38 1 of PACE.

If the officer decides to bail the accused, it will be to the Crown Court section 88 1. If the officer decides not to release the accused on bail, then the accused must be brought before the Crown Court as soon as practicable, and in any event within 24 hours section 88 2.

Annex B provides a step by step procedural guide when the police arrest and charge an acquitted person. This should be read with Obtaining the DPP's consent to an application under Section 76, below in this section. The acquitted person may not have been arrested as part of the investigation because none of the investigative steps in section 85 3 were necessary. However, if the police obtain new evidence by carrying out other investigative steps, the new evidence may prompt a request for the DPP's consent to an application under section 76 an application for a retrial - Archbold In these circumstances a summons is sought from the Crown Court section 89 3 a when the prosecutor gives notice of an application to the Court of Appeal.

The summons would require the acquitted person to appear before the Court of Appeal at the hearing of the application under section Given that in this scenario, the police have not thought it necessary to arrest the acquitted person, the Crown should seek a summons rather than a warrant for the arrest of the acquitted person, unless there are circumstances which justify a warrant.

If a summons has been issued but, for any reason, it is subsequently thought that a warrant is needed, for example where it is likely that the acquitted person may abscond, the prosecutor may apply for a warrant section 89 3 b. Annex C provides a step by step procedural guide in relation to bail and custody after the notice has been served where there has not been an arrest.

This should be read with part 10 of this guidance below. Section 88 governs charging, bail and custody before an application to the Court of Appeal is made for a "section 77 order" Archbold d. It envisages that the acquitted person has been charged by the police and either bailed to the Crown Court, or kept in custody. If an acquitted person is charged by the police under section 88 and either kept in police custody or local authority accommodation, or granted bail, he or she must be brought before the Crown Court as soon as practicable, and in any event not more than 24 hours after charge, or bailed by the police to attend the Crown Court within 24 hours includes Saturday.

Therefore, it must be clear from the file precisely when the suspect was charged, and close liaison is needed between the police and the prosecutor. The expectation is that the timing of an arrest can be considered and avoid the need for a hearing on a Saturday.

However, where this is unavoidable, the magistrates' court will have contact details for the appropriate crown court officer. If the acquitted person appears at the Crown Court before the application has been served the prosecution has 42 days from that appearance to serve notice of application on the Court of Appeal. The Crown Court may extend the day period if there is good and sufficient cause and the prosecutor has acted with all due diligence and expedition.

If the acquitted person has been charged by the police and notice of application has been served on him, the Crown Court may bail him to appear before the Court of Appeal on the date on which the application is to be heard section 88 4 a. If the notice of application has not been served, the Crown Court may remand the acquitted person in custody, to be brought before the Crown Court, as soon as practicable and, in any event within 48 hours after the notice is given.

An application under section 76 is an application by the prosecutor to the Court of Appeal for "a section 77 order". Where the acquittal was an acquittal in England and Wales, the application is made under section 76 1. Only one application is permitted in respect of an acquittal of a qualifying offence.

Thus the prosecutor may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, but may not make a second application. The DPP will only consent if, in addition, it seems probable that the Court of Appeal will find it in the interests of justice under section 79 for "a section 77 order" to be made.

Consent needs to be given personally by the DPP with one exception see paragraph below. There are two basic steps at this stage. The first is a filter, which entails establishing whether Part 10 applies at all. The second step is an application of judgement as to whether the case meets the requirements of section s 78 and That assessment will result in a recommendation to the DPP. The final decisions rests with the DPP. This is because the Court of Appeal must make "a section 77 order" if satisfied that the requirements of sections 78 and 79 are met.

Otherwise it must dismiss the application or, where the acquittal was obtained abroad, declare that it is a bar to further prosecution. Section 78 is satisfied if "there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence" Archbold Section 78 2 states that evidence is "new" if "it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.

The DPP has decided that evidence which was not adduced at the original trial for tactical reasons, is not to be treated as "new" evidence. Evidence may have been inadmissible, or admissible but not admitted as a result of a ruling by the judge at the original trial, but admissible at any retrial because of a change in the rules on admissibility since the original proceedings. In terms of section 78 2 this is "new" evidence.

However, the consent of the DPP may only be given where the new evidence is compelling, which means reliable, substantial, and in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person section 78 3. The DPP has agreed that if his consent is sought to an application to the Court of Appeal where the evidence was available but not admissible or admitted at the original trial and not withheld for tactical reasons then its probative value will be assessed in accordance with the standard laid down in section The question arises as to the appropriate approach in relation to evidence which could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered at the time of the original proceedings.

It is appropriate, when assessing whether section 76 4 is satisfied, to also consider whether the Court of Appeal is likely to make the order sought. The Court of Appeal will take any failure into account under section 79 2 c and d.

The DPP has agreed that any failure to act with due diligence will be part of the public interest test which he has to apply, in accordance with section 76 4 b.

Evidence which was not available or which was available but without probative value is the kind of evidence for which the legislation was designed and there is no policy reason that it should not be considered in accordance with sections 76 and Examples include a highly cogent witness statement, a highly credible confession, or evidence which was available at the time but of which the relevance has only come to light, as a result of developments in forensic science.

Section 78 3 states that evidence is "compelling" if it is a reliable, b substantial, and c in the context of the issues in dispute at the trial, it appears highly probative of the prosecution case against the acquitted person. Thus, if in a rape trial identity was in issue, then the new evidence as to identity could potentially be compelling. If, on the other hand, the issue at trial was consent and not identity, then the new evidence as to identity could not be "compelling".

For example, if the acquitted person was acquitted of arson endangering life, and at trial he had accepted that he was present but denied participation, CCTV evidence cannot be compelling if all it goes to prove is that the person was present. By contrast, if the CCTV evidence is of such a quality that it is "highly probative" as to the person's role, it could potentially be "compelling".

The reason behind this approach is not to consider how strong the original case now is with the enhancement of the new evidence but to enable a case to be reopened when the evidence comes to light which is itself so apparently compelling that the court hearing the application is driven to the conclusion that at that stage the evidence is highly probative of the prosecution case against the acquitted person. The probative value of the new evidence in each case is to be assessed on its own merits.

The DPP has agreed that he would only want to proceed in cases in which, as a result of the new evidence a conviction is highly probable, either by a plea of guilty or by the verdict of the jury and any acquittal by a jury would appear to be perverse.

This is consistent with the requirement of high probative value of the item of evidence specified in section 78 3 c. In the case of R v Miell [] 1 WLR , the Court of Appeal ruled that where an application under section 76 for the quashing of an acquittal and an order for a retrial was based on the defendant's plea of guilty to perjury in respect of his evidence at the original trial in which he had denied the offence, it was for the CA to form its own view as to whether the fresh evidence was "compelling" within section 78 i.

The fact that if the application were granted, the conviction for perjury would be admissible at the retrial and that proof of the conviction should be taken to be proof of the defendant's guilt unless he proved the contrary under section 74 of PACE , did not absolve the court at the stage of an application for a retrial from forming its own assessment.

Where the new confession evidence contained demonstrable untruths and had subsequently been retracted, the evidence did not meet the test. This was especially because the original jury had acquitted despite the evidence of a confession made after the offence, which on its face was more credible than the new confession evidence, as there had been no demonstrable untruths contained therein.

The DPP must consider the public interest in deciding whether or not to make an application to the Court of Appeal to quash an acquittal. An application will usually take place so long as the other conditions are satisfied unless there are public interest factors tending against an application which clearly outweigh those factors tending in favour.

The DPP acts on behalf of the public and not just in the interests of a particular individual. However, the DPP should take into account the consequences for the victim of whether or not to make an application to the Court of Appeal, and any views expressed by the victim or the victim's family. Section 79 2 Archbold states that the Court of Appeal is to reach its decision having regard in particular to:. Failing to exclude evidence which the police could reasonably have found during the original investigation might be seen as an incentive to poor investigations.

To safeguard against this, section 79 2 provides a specific element of due diligence into the 'interests of justice' test the Court of Appeal must apply in considering applications for a retrial. No court would allow the prosecution a second chance of prosecuting a person to make up for the incompetence of the prosecution police and prosecutor. The DPP has agreed he will only consent to an application for a reinvestigation or an application to the Court of Appeal to quash the acquittal where the prosecution comes to the process with 'clean hands'.

Therefore, the DPP will consider any failure to act with due diligence to be part of the public interest test which he has to apply, in accordance with section 76 4 b.

The recommendation should also address the question of whether, and if so when, reporting restrictions will need to be applied for or varied. If the original offence was one for which the Attorney General's consent was needed to commence a prosecution, then the DPP will consult with the Attorney before the DPP gives his consent to an application to the Court of Appeal.

This is to ensure that the Attorney General is advised of the case and kept informed of progress. The Attorney General's consent having been given once is not required a second time.

If the DPP approves the case as being one where it is appropriate for an application to the Court of Appeal to be made, then the procedure should be followed as laid down in section 80 and the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeal can only make an order to quash an acquittal and order a retrial if it is satisfied that there is both new and compelling evidence and that it is in the interests of justice. The prosecutor who wishes to make an application under section 76 1 or section 76 2 must give notice of the application to the Court of Appeal section 80 1 Archbold The prosecutor shall send with the notice to the registrar and the acquitted person, where practicable, the following documents:.

The prosecutor must give notice to the acquitted person of the application within two calendar days including the day the notice is given to the Court of Appeal. If the person on whom notice is to be served is outside the UK, the prosecutor should apply to the Court of Appeal for an extension of the period for service in Form RSO 1.