Murder without a body.

[spainlads]

If a man is charged with murdering his wife, even though the body is never found, and he is sent to prison. Then he serves his sentence and is released from prison. He then finds out that his wife is alive and well. Can he legally kill her. He's been found guilty and served time for it?????

[Hippy]

Now let's look at this. When our man discovers his wife fit and well then murders her and is later apprehended, the Public Prosecutor would take this new evidence to the Court of Appeal and make a plea for a mistrial regarding the first trial. If this were successful then the original trial and its verdict would be set aside, opening the way for a second and more proper trial for murder.

Now, if our man were to be found guilty then the only sentence possible for murder is Life Imprisonment, and any previous time served (wrongfully as it seems) would have little effect on the total second and correct sentence. However it may have some bearing in determining a date for release on licence at a later date.

Life imprisonment for murder is exactly that. When a person convicted of murder is released from prison they are allowed out under licence, and have restrictions on their movements and are under the observation of the courts (Probation Officer etc). Any new offending or breach of the licence rules could mean the offender returning to prison. This applies for the rest of their life.

[sexy_bef69]

Wow what a great question. He wouldnt get the time back. Thats great

[bernardo]

No, because the charge of the original murder specifies a time when it was allegedly committed.

[Greedyfly]

Double Jeopardy

[jenstar]

Ah, but the question is, does Double Jeopardy actually apply, i.e. is this the same crime or a different one? I think bernardo is right - murdering someone in, say, 1994, would be a different crime to murdering the same person in 2004.

[Headtime]

I have to say, Spainlads, that is one of the most fantastic questions I have ever heard. Genius.

[Michael H]

Uhh?

[Miss Zippy]

Of course he couldn't legally kill her! If he did, it would be a completely separate crime to the one he was originally tried for.

[EliPledge]

Yes ageed, sexy_bef69, what a good question!

[becks]

But you can't be tried for the same crime twice so how would they be able to have a trial?? Agreed with those above though, genius question, seen the film double jeopardy? Bit like that...

[spainlads]

But isn't double jeopardy just an American thing????

[Miss Zippy]

No it�s not just as American thing, the so-called �double jeopardy� principle also applies in the UK. The principle means that where a defendant has been acquitted of a particular crime, he/she cannot be re-tried at a later date for the same crime even if new evidence arises (this is obviously different from the question you�re posing). However, the Law Commission is looking into whether the principle should be abandoned in certain murder cases where �compelling� new evidence comes to light after a suspect has been acquitted. The LC review was prompted by the Stephen Lawrence case. It�s also been prompted by the fact that developments in scientific techniques means that fresh, reliable evidence may now be obtained today in respect of a murder that happened, say, 10 years ago, but which science at the time was unable to provide (and, hence, the defendant was acquitted through lack of this evidence).

[cheyenne]

i reckon she should do the same time inside that he did? the bitch???

[madham]

I think Hippy should be a solicitor, is that isn't the case (no pun intended) already!!

[c3111068]

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/archive/2 002/07/17/hogg.re.html Check the above link for an ongoing issue in my area about the whole double jeopardy issue.

[secretspirit]

I bet he'd want to kill her after all the trouble he'd been through.

[tomd]

You could probably sue the ass of someone about it.