RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L] Autrefois acquit - LawSite.today

Autrefois acquit

Leave a Comment / Maxim / By

Maxim: Autrefois acquit

The legal maxim “Autrefois Acquit” is a French term that translates to “formerly acquitted” in English. This legal principle is related to the concept of double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being prosecuted or punished multiple times for the same offense. Here’s a detailed explanation along with examples:

  1. Autrefois: This is a French term meaning “formerly” or “previously.”
  2. Acquit: This term refers to the legal concept of being acquitted, which means being found not guilty of a criminal charge.

Now, let’s explore the meaning and provide examples:

  • Legal Context: “Autrefois Acquit” is a plea that a defendant can raise to prevent being tried again for an offense for which they have already been acquitted.
  • Principle: The principle is based on the idea that once a person has been acquitted of a particular criminal charge, they should not be subject to the same prosecution again, protecting them from double jeopardy.

Examples:

  1. Criminal Trial Acquittal: Suppose an individual is charged with a crime, such as theft, and they go through a trial. If the jury finds them not guilty (acquits them), the principle of “Autrefois Acquit” would prevent the prosecution from bringing the same charge against the individual in a subsequent trial.
  2. Hung Jury: If a trial ends in a mistrial because the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict (a hung jury), and the prosecution decides not to pursue a retrial, the defendant is not considered to be “acquitted.” In such a case, “Autrefois Acquit” may not apply because there was no formal acquittal.
  3. Prosecutorial Discretion: Even if a defendant is acquitted, the prosecutor may have the discretion to bring charges for related offenses that were not included in the initial trial. However, the new charges must be distinct and not identical to the previously acquitted offense.
  4. Civil and Criminal Distinction: The principle generally applies to criminal cases. In civil cases, the concept of “res judicata” may prevent the relitigation of the same issue, but it doesn’t operate in the same way as “Autrefois Acquit.”

In summary, “Autrefois Acquit” is a legal maxim that reflects the principle of double jeopardy, protecting individuals from being subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same criminal offense after being acquitted in a previous trial.

Case Laws:

2005  PLD  1     QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ASHFAQ KHALID               VS.         THE STATE

—-Ss. 10, 11, 12 & 17—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.403, 222, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 537 & 397—Maxim: Nemo debet bis vexari—Maxim: Autrefois acquit autrefois convict—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.13—Corruption and corrupt practices—Criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of money—Filing of three references by National Accountability Bureau—Joint trial of each offence—Validity—Double jeopardy—Conditions to be satisfied for invoking S.403, Cr.P.C.—“Same facts” and similar facts —Distinction–Benefit of S.403, Cr.P.C. or provisions of Art.13 of the Constitution when available/not available to accused—

 

  1970  SCMR  189     SUPREME-COURT

  MUHAMMAD ALI          VS.         STATE

Maxim: Autrefois acquit-Criminal trial of four accused-Two acquitted and two convicted-Neither complainant nor State moving appeal against acquittal-High Court, in appeal by convicted accused, setting aside conviction and ordering retrial-Contention that retrial meant reopening case against acquitted accused as well Held not correct.

 

  2022  PCrLJ  1022     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  QURBAN HUSSAIN        VS.         STATE

Art. 13—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26—Protection against double punishment and self-incrimination—Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence—Provisions as to offences punishable under two or more enactments—Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa—Applicability—Scope—Autrefois acquit—Autrefois convict—Scope—Article 13 of the Constitution, S. 403 of Cr.P.C. and S. 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are based on the ancient maxim of “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which connotes that “no person should be twice disturbed of the same cause” and common law principle, which the accused can use as a shield in the form of pleas of “autrefois acquit” which means “formerly acquitted” and “autrefois convict” which means “formerly convicted”—Double jeopardy means that no person should be periled twice in respect of the same matter—Reading of the said enactments provisions of law showed that the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict contained in S. 403(1), Cr.P.C., forbid a new trial after a conviction or acquittal on the basis of the same facts—No court, according to S. 403, Cr.P.C., shall try any person who was already tried by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts, irrespective of whether he was acquitted or convicted—Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that where an act or omission which constitutes an offence under two or more different enactments, then the accused shall be liable to be prosecuted under either or any of said enactments, however, the accused shall not be liable to be vexed twice for the same offence—Article 13(a) of the Constitution places an embargo on subsequent prosecution and punishment for the same offence.

Shopping Cart
× How can I help you?