I guess the overall lack of response to this topic could be interpreted that people are not overly interested in this topic, and could not not give a toss whether the double jeopardy rule should be or not be abolished.

Roll on justice for the victims and not just the perpetrators.

Perhaps the abolition of the double jeopardy rule may have another consequence: that is, if someone thinks that they can get away with it at the first trial, but realises that if they may get another trial, with less mercy for a guilty plea (as I would presume that the original not guilty plea would be have to be carried over from the first trial - leading to an assumption of lack of remorse and less chance for rehabilitation) then maybe more felons will plead guilty to their crimes in the first instance.

Or would defence lawyers try to argue that a not guilty plea should be made if the person thinks that they get away with it, regardless of whether they actually killed, raped or assaulted someone?

"Or would defence lawyers try to argue that a not guilty plea should be made if the person thinks that they get away with it, regardless of whether they actually killed, raped or assaulted someone? "

Yes Hamlet, of course they would. Their loyalty is to their client, and getting the best possible outcome for them. That's the way the system is designed. Occasionally a little lip service can be heard to the contrary, but in practice this is not the case.

Actually, TurnRightThenLeft, a lawyer's duty is to the court, not to their client.

If a lawyer is told by their client that they committed the crime, instead of just suspecting that they did, it is the lawyers duty to withdraw from representing that client, unless the lawyer can see that the client only thinks that they committed a crime, and it able to convince their client otherwise.

To give an example, say in a pub fight someone falls, due to a punch, hits his head and dies.

The lawyer's client may assume, from lack of knowledge of the law, that they have committed murder, whereas the client may be in actual fact guilty of manslaughter, for various reasons, or may even have the defence of self defence available to them, so pleading guilty to murder may be an injustice.

I am also aware of one case where a defence of diminished responsibility was aguably available to an accused, but whose conscience so troubled him that he insisted on pleading guilty to murder.

However, if someone intentionally shoots or stabs someone, and admits that to their lawyer, and then insists on the lawyer running the case that he had absolutely nothing to do with the case and, for example, was 2000 kilometres away at the time, the lawyer is bound to withdraw.

I have spoken to barristers who simply don't want to know whether their client did the deed, who intentionally don't ask, due to exactly this problem that they face. Many lawyers do this with honour and dignity. They HAVE to believe that their client is not guilty.

It is the lawyers who use legal tricks to prevent the truth from coming before the court that I dislike. They do society no justice whatsoever.

However for a lawyer to come out and want to stop the truth, for example by arguing against the scrapping of the double jeopardy rule, is for that lawyer to say that they not only consider an accused to be not guilty, they simply don't want to know, and don't care, if they are guilty.

So the Queensland Police Service and the Departemnt of Public Prosecutuions are the criminals now? Harrassing innocent people until they get a conviction are they? Anyone who has been on the receiving end of ruthless defence lawyers and their dirty tactics in protecting people who they know damn well are guilty know exactly who the criminals are?

As a law student at the very end of my degree, I have always believed that the rule of double jeopardy is a fundamental tenet of our legal system. Such a rule was created over 800 years ago to protect the individual from executive detention, and to ensure a fair trial process. To legislate to remove double jeopardy is to allow a person to hypothetically be tried innumerous times, and if held without bail throughout these proceedings, the effect is to deny them a fair trial until such time as a jury finds them guilty.

What is the point of a legal system if an accused person can simply be retried until the verdict is favourable to the government of the day?

As to using such a procedure to overcome "technicalities" in the law, I feel it important to note that the word "technicality" gets thrown around a lot. Ensuring that unfair evidence not be admitted, that the jury are given proper directions and that no error of law is made are not "technicalities". They are safeguards, to protect everyday individuals from going to gaol for doing no wrong.

Rob - your point is the only one, as far as I can tell, which is used to defend the double jeopardy rule.

DJ may be a fundemental tenet of the system, is this alone enough to argue that it must be maintained?

Isn't our legal system also based on a 'spirit of the law' tenet? hasn't it been designed to evolve, thus, we have both statute and common law - importantly, the tradition of precedent.

Might I ask what's flawed in Gw's suggestion?

The idea that the outcomes would be geared toward the government of the day is only valid if there is either an automatic assumption of unlimiterd trials or that the separation of powers has utterly failed.

To assume that there would be innumerable trials is to assume judges and legislators are incapable of placing sufficient controls - even something as simple as a limit of two trials would wipe out the majority of flawed verdicts.
If judges are incapable of that, they can we really on anything produced by our legal system? To assume this, would be to cast the gravest aspersions on the findings of establishments such as the high court.

If our judges are really incapable of maintaining the integrity of the legal system in the event of DJ being abolished, if this would result in trials favourable to the government of the day... then what does that say about the recent high court FOI case, and even more importantly, the IR findings?

BTW hamlet - yeah, there'll be some good lawyers who adhere to the noble rhetoric. I still find that most I've encountered prefer to find legal ways around it while maintaining the pretense of adhering to it.

Refute this logic: those who have wins for their client (regardless of how) will be in demand. Face it, if you're in strife, you want the lawyer that will get you off.
The lawyers in demand are prized by the firms. They can also charge more.

Rhetoric is all well and good, but in the real world things tend to be less pleasant.