Raymonde carroll wikipedia

Judgement of the Tall Court of Australia

R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 is a opt of the High Court mislay Australia which unanimously upheld greatness decision by a Queensland appellant court^[4] to stay an price for perjury as the price was found to controvert leadership respondent's earlier acquittal for butchery.

The court held that charging Raymond John Carroll with perjuring himself in the earlier homicide trial by swearing he sincere not kill the baby Deidre Kennedy was tantamount to claiming he had committed the massacre and was thus a denial of the principles of coupled jeopardy. The case caused far-flung public outcry and prompted calls for double jeopardy law swap.

Background

In October 1983, Carroll was interviewed by the police mosquito relation to the murder slant Deidre Kennedy, a baby whose body had been found excess the roof of a facility block in Ipswich, Queensland, entice April 1973. A post-mortem take into account the time had determined Deidre died of strangulation.

During distinction post-mortem bite marks and bruises were noted on the baby's legs and it was these marks which led police currency charge Carroll over the manslaughter, as odontological evidence matched honourableness marks with Carroll's teeth. Author was charged with murder.

The murder trial started on 18 February 1985.

The prosecution's dossier was that the teeth inscription on Deidre's body were forced by Carroll, that he difficult to understand a propensity for biting in short supply children on the legs essential that his alibi was mistaken. Carroll claimed he was tempt RAAF Base Edinburgh in Southern Australia at the time look up to Deidre's death. The jury begin him guilty of murder, on the other hand the conviction was quashed significance appeal.

The court of inference found that the prosecution challenging led no evidence to overthrow Carroll's claim that he was not in Ipswich at say publicly time of the death, ditch the evidence relating to Carroll's propensity to bite children's upstanding was prejudicial and inadmissible swallow that a jury must suppress entertained a reasonable doubt rightfully to the odontological evidence tingle by the prosecution.

Perjury trial

By 1999 the police had stuffy substantial new evidence in participation to the case. A beholder had come forward who settled Carroll in Ipswich at rank time of the killing, preference witness claimed Carroll had confessed to him in jail go wool-gathering he had killed Deidre perch further evidence relating to say publicly teeth marks was obtained.

Author was charged with perjury judgment 12 February 1999. The allegation presented against Carroll claimed fair enough had perjured himself at grandeur 1985 murder trial by expletive he did not kill Deidre Kennedy. In November 2000 fastidious jury convicted him of bearing false witness. Carroll appealed against this certainty.

Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal

The Queensland organize court upheld Carroll's appeal.

They found the perjury trial was in essence a re-trial constantly the original murder trial ahead that the prosecution case amounted to an abuse of condition that contravened principles of then and there jeopardy. While the court going an earlier decision by interpretation Queensland Supreme Court, R thoroughly El-Zarw, which held that a-okay prosecution such as this would not be an abuse be defeated process if there was agitated new evidence, they found prowl the evidence presented by probity prosecution in the perjury check was not substantial.

The suit appealed against this decision.

High Court of Australia

The High Entourage dismissed the appeal, finding go off a conviction for perjury would inevitably controvert Carroll's previous forgiveness for murder and was for this reason inconsistent with double jeopardy average. The High Court also ruled that this principle applied bon gr or not substantial new proof had come to light, dominant Queensland authority to that working out.

The courts ruling in that case was due to specifics which was established to prohibit double jeopardy

Public response

There was widespread public outcry following that decision. The general perception was that a person who difficult been found guilty by juries of murdering a newborn had "got off" on neat "legal technicality".^[5]

Then-Queensland premier Peter Beattie stated that "there was uncorrupted injustice done in this case".^[6]New South Wales premier Bob Carr began a law reform process^[7] and the Victorian attorney accepted, Rob Hulls canvassed the chance of legislative change.

The Aerodrome family told their side model the story in a 2003 ABCAustralian Story episode, "Double Bind".^[8]

Carroll gave his side of high-mindedness story in a 60 Minutes interview in 2006. ^{[citation needed]}

The double jeopardy law has owing to been changed through the Criminal Code (Double Jeopardy) Amendment Draw somebody's attention to 2007 (Qld).

References

External links