§ Mr. WinnickTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of changing the law to provide that a person may be charged with the same offence if the previous court case in respect of the same offence had not proceeded to the conclusion and a jury's decision; and if he will make a statement. [17404]
§ Mr. Maclean[holding answer 24 February 1997]: The law provides that a person cannot be tried for a crime in respect of which he has either been previously convicted or acquitted or could have been convicted on some previous indictment. Its purpose is to provide protection for individuals against repeated prosecutions for the same offence.
However, a defendant may be prosecuted for the same offence in certain circumstances where previous proceedings have not been concluded: where the accused is discharged at committal proceedings; if the indictment has been quashed following a motion to quash; where the prosecution withdraws the summons in the magistrates court before the accused had pleaded; where an information is dismissed because the prosecutor did not appear before the magistrates court or where the information was so faulty in form and content that the accused could never have been in jeopardy of being convicted on it; where the prosecution serves a notice of discontinuance and if the jury was discharged from giving a verdict.
Following the recent abandonment of the Whitemoor trial, my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 24 January that he was giving serious consideration to the possibility of legislation to provide for a review on appeal of decisions which bring a case to a final conclusion contrary to the submission of the prosecutor.