A quick [THREAD] in response to some questions raised about this awful case.
Legally, what (if anything) could follow?
Legally, what (if anything) could follow?
At the outset, it goes without saying that few of us can even begin to imagine what Lissie Harper has been put through. Her pain and her grief is inestimable; both for her loss and her feelings of injustice at the verdicts. I too would want to do whatever I could in her position.
The BBC article linked above provides a good summary of the law, but I’ll rehearse the key points here.
The starting point is that once a person has been acquitted of a crime, they cannot be retried for the same crime. (The “double jeopardy” rule)
But there are exceptions.
The starting point is that once a person has been acquitted of a crime, they cannot be retried for the same crime. (The “double jeopardy” rule)
But there are exceptions.
The first is where new and compelling evidence comes to light indicating that a person acquitted of a very serious offence (including murder) is in fact guilty.
Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out the law legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/…
Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out the law legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/…
In such a case, the Director of Public Prosecutions can authorise an application to the Court of Appeal for an order to quash the acquittal and direct a retrial. This is rare, but has happened in high profile cases, often involving new DNA evidence, eg: theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/18…
The second way that an acquittal can be quashed is by an application by the prosecution to the High Court where there is a “tainted acquittal”.
This is where an acquittal resulted from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness.
But the rules are strict.
This is where an acquittal resulted from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness.
But the rules are strict.
First, you need for a person to have been convicted of an “administration of justice” offence, such as witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice. And for the convicting court to find that there is a “real possibility” that this offence led to the acquittal. 
You also need the convicting court to be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice (eg because of lapse of time) for the acquitted person to be retried.
If these are all satisfied, the court must “certify” as such.
The case then goes to the High Court.
If these are all satisfied, the court must “certify” as such.
The case then goes to the High Court.
If the High Court agrees that, but for the interference/intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted, and is satisfied that it is not contrary to the interests of justice to do so, it will quash the acquittal and there will be a retrial.
There have been reports of alleged attempts to improperly influence the jury in the trial of Pc Harper’s killers. The details are unclear, and it is unknown whether any prosecutions will follow
Should there be prosecutions and convictions, I’d expect a retrial to be applied for.
Should there be prosecutions and convictions, I’d expect a retrial to be applied for.
It follows from the above that politicians have no role to play in this exercise. Again, there is absolutely no criticism of Mrs Harper for writing to the PM, but neither he nor any other minister can influence this process.
We will simply have to wait and see what happens.
We will simply have to wait and see what happens.
