Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Double Jeopardy Exception and Subsequent Appeals) Amendment Bill 2023

Supported the double jeopardy expansion as a crucial step to rectify injustices caused by the forensic DNA lab failures, and acknowledged the inclusion of the offence 'abuse of persons with an impairment of the mind'.

“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

Did not oppose the double jeopardy bill but expressed concerns about departures from fundamental legal principles, noting the bill was necessitated by forensic DNA lab failures.

“The LNP will not be opposing either of these bills.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported expanding double jeopardy exceptions to 10 additional offences, arguing the bill strikes an appropriate balance between reform and preservation of long-established principles.

“I believe this bill strikes an appropriate balance between reform in the spirit of justice and the preservation of the protections enshrined in these long-established principles.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported expanding the double jeopardy exception to 10 additional serious offences and the right of subsequent appeal, stating the new laws will provide stronger measures to protect the most vulnerable.

“I am fully supportive of the bills before the House. These new laws will certainly provide stronger measures to protect those who are most vulnerable.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard

Supported the bill's expansion of double jeopardy exceptions and subsequent appeals framework, noting broad stakeholder support for wrongfully convicted persons to have further avenues of appeal.

“The committee believes that individuals who have been wrongfully convicted deserve as many opportunities as reasonable to have their case reheard, especially if it involves evidence that did not exist, or was not available, during the original trial.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the double jeopardy expansion, acknowledging it was introduced due to the forensic science lab debacle and expressing hope it will bring more justice for victims.

“Hopefully, the changes in this bill will bring more justice, especially for our victims.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard

Acknowledged the bill was necessitated by the DNA lab failures and supported the committee's recommendation that it be passed, while criticising the government for the underlying forensic services debacle.

“It is clear that this bill is being introduced due to the failures in the Queensland DNA lab and the expected retrials needed.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Welcomed the double jeopardy expansion as great legislative change that will allow prosecution of cases affected by the DNA lab failures, and paid tribute to Peter Dutton's earlier work on double jeopardy laws.

“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 bill's passage but characterised it as an extraordinary measure forced by the government's catastrophic failures in the forensic DNA lab, affecting up to 37,000 cases.

“These are drastic changes that go against the fundamental principle of double jeopardy. This is the extraordinary length this state government has gone to to cover up its failures in the DNA lab.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the bill to allow reprosecution when new evidence emerges, noting the DNA commission of inquiry revealed the criminal investigation process was under-resourced and under-prioritised.

“The difference that accurate DNA testing makes in criminal cases such as murder and sexual offences cannot be overstated.”— 2024-03-06View Hansard

Broadly supported the expansion of double jeopardy exceptions as a response to the DNA lab maladministration, while noting concerns raised by the Bar Association and Law Society about the applicable tests.

“We are broadly supportive of that change to the double jeopardy laws. It is not creating a whole new mechanism, because we have one in Queensland already.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported expanding double jeopardy exceptions, citing the historical case of toddler Deidre Kennedy in Ipswich where rigid adherence to double jeopardy rules perpetuated injustice.

“The decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court clearly show that rigid adherence to double jeopardy rules risks perpetrating an injustice.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the subsequent appeals framework for wrongfully convicted persons but opposed expanding the double jeopardy exceptions for the Crown, arguing it represents mission creep and undermines a fundamental control on state power.

“I support the introduction of a further right of appeal for a defendant but oppose the relaxation of the rule for the Crown, because there is a different set of considerations at play.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the subsequent appeals framework but emphasised the bill was necessitated by the DNA lab failures, with up to 37,000 cases potentially needing retesting.

“These changes are necessary to fix the potential wrongs caused by the massive DNA lab debacle.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the double jeopardy measures to address forensic lab failures but criticised the government for creating the need for such extraordinary legislation through its mismanagement.

“The fact that we need to come in here with clauses around double jeopardy to resolve these issues is a disgrace; it should have been addressed earlier.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard

Supported the double jeopardy changes but characterised them as necessitated by the state Labor government's systemic failures in the forensic DNA testing laboratory.

“It is unfathomable but, in the interests of justice for victims, fundamental legislative principles are having to be set aside to cover for the failures of the state Labor government.”— 2024-03-05View Hansard