Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception and Subsequent Appeals) Amendment Bill 2023
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill strengthens Queensland's criminal justice system in two ways: it allows convicted people to make further appeals when new evidence of their innocence emerges, and it expands the ability to retry people who were acquitted of serious crimes when fresh evidence comes to light. Queensland was one of the last Australian jurisdictions without a subsequent appeal framework, and the double jeopardy exception previously only applied to murder.
Who it affects
People who have been wrongfully convicted gain a new pathway to challenge their conviction. Victims of serious crimes including rape, manslaughter, and child sexual offences may see cases reopened if fresh evidence emerges against someone who was previously acquitted.
Key changes
- Creates a right for convicted people to make subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal when fresh or new compelling evidence emerges, even after exhausting all existing appeal rights
- Expands the double jeopardy exception from murder to 10 additional serious offences punishable by life imprisonment, including manslaughter, attempted murder, rape, incest, and serious child sexual offences
- Both reforms apply retrospectively — people convicted or acquitted before the law commences can use the new provisions
- For subsequent appeals, recognises cases where evidence was missed due to lawyer incompetence or prosecution failing to disclose evidence
- Retrial of an acquitted person requires fresh and compelling evidence and must be in the interests of justice, with only one retrial application permitted per offence
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee29 Nov 2023 – 5 Mar 2024View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Safety Committee
▸Second Reading5 Mar 2024 – 6 Mar 2024View Hansard
▸11 members spoke10 support1 oppose
Stated the LNP will not oppose either bill, while foreshadowing amendments to the Penalties and Sentences provisions. Acknowledged the importance of criminalising coercive control and supported the reforms arising from the Women's Safety and Justice Taskforce.
“The LNP will not be opposing either of these bills. We will, however, be moving amendments to one part of the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill relevant only to the Penalties and Sentences Act.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Supported both bills as committee member, noting broad stakeholder support for the subsequent appeals framework and the committee's recommendation to pass both bills.
“The committee notes the broad support from stakeholders for a subsequent appeals framework that brings Queensland in line with most other Australian jurisdictions.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Supported the bill's expansion of double jeopardy exceptions, acknowledging the inclusion of abuse of persons with impairment of the mind and crediting Peter Dutton's earlier work on double jeopardy legislation.
“Justice for victims must remain a paramount concern. This bill is a crucial step towards rectifying the injustices caused by the failures of the Miles Labor government and Queensland's DNA lab.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard
Supported both bills, commending the work of victim-survivors and agencies, and acknowledging the importance of expanding double jeopardy exceptions to sexual violence cases.
“Like others, I want to commend all of the work of the victim-survivors, the agencies and the department.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Supported the expansion of double jeopardy exceptions to additional serious offences including sex offences, stating these new laws will provide stronger measures to protect the most vulnerable.
“These new laws will certainly provide stronger measures to protect those who are most vulnerable.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard
Supported the intent to keep people safe from controlling and abusive partners, while acknowledging the complexity of both bills.
“That being said, I support the intent to keep people safe from controlling and abusive partners.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Supported the expansion of double jeopardy exceptions, noting the forensic science lab debacle necessitated the ability to reopen criminal cases and expressing hope the changes would bring more justice for victims.
“Hopefully, the changes in this bill will bring more justice, especially for our victims.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard
Focused specifically on the double jeopardy bill, opposing the further expansion of exceptions to the double jeopardy rule beyond existing provisions.
“I am opposed to the bill's further watering down of the double jeopardy rule which would expand the offences to which the double jeopardy exception applies.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Provided a comprehensive analysis of both bills, noting general stakeholder support for the coercive control offence while acknowledging concerns raised by some legal organisations.
“There was general support for the new offence of coercive control.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard
Strongly welcomed the expansion of double jeopardy exceptions, acknowledging Peter Dutton's earlier work and the necessity created by the DNA lab failures affecting approximately 37,000 cases.
“This legislation is something that I very much welcome. It is certainly great that a broader range of offences will benefit from the opportunity to prosecute once the DNA has been retested.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard
Supported the expansion of double jeopardy exceptions, noting the bill was necessitated by the forensic DNA commission of inquiry findings about under-resourcing of DNA testing.
“It was confronting to learn that such a pivotal arm of the state's entire criminal investigation process was under-resourced and under-prioritised by the state government.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard
▸In Detail6 Mar 2024View Hansard
That the amendment be agreed to
Vote on the LNP amendment moved by Mr Nicholls to remove clause 83 from the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which would have deleted the provision requiring courts to consider the effect of systemic disadvantage and intergenerational trauma on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders when sentencing. The amendment was defeated 31-46.
The motion was defeated.