Laws And Lawyers

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published January 26, 2010
Regina v Bell
The jurisdiction which permitted a second retrial, after the jury in two earlier trials had been unable to reach a verdict, had to be exercised with extreme caution.
The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice led to the view that a third trial in such circumstances should be confined to the very small number of cases where the crime was extremely grave and where the evidence that the defendant had committed the crime, on any fair-minded objective judgment, remained very powerful.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Royce) so held on January 19, 2010, in dismissing an appeal by Philip Bell against his conviction on February 13, 2009, at Maidstone Crown Court (Judge Patience, QC and a jury) of murder.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the appellant submitted that the decision of the Crown to seek a third trial was an abuse of process and that the judge was wrong to conclude that notwithstanding that a second retrial would replicate much of what had gone on at the previous trial, that feature was outweighed by the fact that this was a case of the utmost seriousness, namely the alleged murder of a defenceless girl aged 17, for a sexual motive, and by the strong public interest in the achievement of a positive decision and thus finality, if possible.
Having examined not only the basis of the judge’s decision but also whether the effect of his decision was oppressive or unjust, their Lordships could discern no unfairness or oppression. The conviction was safe.