2023-10-112023-10-11https://vitela.javerianacali.edu.co/handle/11522/115On January 3, 2012, a judgment was pronounced in England that has shaken British and American scholars. This judgment was based on a law authorizing English courts to skip in certain cases some of the principles of law that are considered extremely valuable, such as double jeopardy, res judicata , and non - retroactivity. The statute on which the opinion is based is the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and, even though it was not applied for the first time in January of 2 012, the 2012 judgment is symbolic because the law was practically written to cope with a single case. England has a strong legal tradition and has produced several top philosophers of the Western legal system. Keeping that in mind, the reasoning that led England to take that step merits deliberate study, and it should not be dismissed as mere arbitrariness. This article presents the historical and cultural context of the institution of double jeopardy. Then, it goes on to discuss the events that, after the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, gave rise to the law that was passed in 2003. The article concludes by translating into Spanish the judgment authorizing retrial, as well as the final legal opinion in the case.El 3 de enero de 2012, se dio en Inglaterra una sentencia que ha agitado a la academia británica y norteamericana. Tal sentencia se basó en una ley que autoriza a las cortes inglesas a omitir en ciertos casos principios del derecho considerados sacrosantos, como el non bis in idem , la cosa juzgada material y la irretroactividad. Se trata de la Criminal Justice Act de 2003 y, si bien no es la primera vez que se aplica, la sentencia de 2012 es simbólica porque la ley se escribió prácticamente para solucionar ese caso. Inglaterra no es una nación cualquiera: tiene sólidas tradiciones jurídicas y ha producido varios de los mejores ideólogos del sistema legal occidental, de manera que los razonamientos que la llevaron a dar ese paso merecen una reflexión pausada, sin llegar a desecharlos como una mera arbitrariedad. El presente artículo hace una contextualización histórica y cultural de la institución del double jeopardy; pasa a examinar los eventos que, a partir del asesinato de Stephen Lawrence en 1993, dieron origen a la norma; y termina con una traducción de la sentencia que autorizó a repetir el juicio y del fallo definitivo.application/pdfhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0Cosa juzgadanon bis in idemseguridad jurídicairretroactividadderecho comparadoRes judicatadouble jeopardynon-retroactivitycomparative lawinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article