The crown prosecution service applied to the court of appeal to quash Dobson's 1996 acquittal in a private murder prosecution case brought by the Lawrence family. The application, heard in March, was made under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, which allows the ancient rule of double jeopardy - which banned the crown from trying someone for the same offence twice - to be set aside.

Given that just a handful of acquittals have been set aside under the 2003 act, the judgment is legally important in its own right - let alone that it relates to one of Britain's highest-profile unsolved murders.

The court of appeal summary sets out the facts of the case, an outline of the new evidence, and the tests of which the court must be convinced before setting aside a not-guilty verdict. It also gives brief detail of Dobson's arguments as to why he should not be tried for a second time.

With tough reporting restrictions still in place, it is the fullest account that can be published of what has been going on in this case.

These are extended extracts from the court of appeal's landmark judgment, which cleared the way for two men to go on trial for Stephen's murder 18 years on. The numbering is from the summary of the judgment.

The judgment
1. On 22 April 1993, just after 10.35pm, a young man, Stephen Lawrence, then 18, was waiting at a bus stop at Eltham with a close friend of the same age, Duwayne Brooks. As they waited peacefully for the bus, a group of white youths crossed the road towards them. One of the youths used abusive racist language.

This was followed by a sudden and immediate attack, as the group converged on or charged at them. Duwayne Brooks managed to make his escape, but Stephen Lawrence was felled. He was stabbed twice to the upper torso, one wound tracked vertically downwards from 10cm to the right of the mid line, and the second tracked more or less horizontally, but in an upward direction, from the outer aspect of the left shoulder. Major blood vessels were severed. The injuries were fatal.

The position and angle of the wounds suggested that the torso may have been upright at the time when the knife wounds were inflicted. Apart from the stabbing wounds, the only further injuries noted at postmortem were an incised injury to the left side of the chin and abrasions to the cheek and the back of the right hand.

Mortally wounded, Stephen Lawrence managed to get to his feet. He ran after Duwayne Brooks, but after a little while, he collapsed on the pavement. He died shortly afterwards in hospital.

2. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young black man of great promise, targeted and killed by a group of white youths just because of the colour of his skin, was indeed a calamitous crime.

3. Stephen Lawrence's parents began a private prosecution and, in April 1996, Gary Dobson, Luke Knight and Neil Acourt were tried for murder. Following a ruling that purported identification evidence was not admissible, there was insufficient evidence to justify the continuation of the prosecution. The jury was directed to acquit the defendants. Not guilty verdicts were entered.

4. This is an application by the prosecution for the acquittal of Gary Dobson to be quashed and for a retrial to be ordered under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Another suspect, not a defendant at the earlier trial, David Norris, was arrested in September 2010 and charged with murder. His trial will take place at the central criminal court in November 2011. If the acquittal of Gary Dobson is quashed and a retrial ordered, the prosecution propose that he and David Norris be tried together.

The statutory criteria
5. Until Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 act) came into force, the ancient rule against double jeopardy represented an insuperable barrier to a second prosecution of any of those acquitted at the central criminal court in April 1996.

6. Section 78 of the 2003 act provides: "(1) The requirements of this section are met if there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person. (2) Evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted. (3) Evidence is compelling if (a) it is reliable, (b) it is substantial, and (c) in the context of the outstanding issues,it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.

7. Thus "compelling evidence" for the purposes of section 78 is defined in the section itself. It does not mean that the evidence must be irresistible, or that absolute proof of guilt is required. In other words, the court should not and is certainly not required to usurp the function of the jury, or, if a new trial is ordered, to indicate to the jury what the verdict should be.

12. The present application depends on the reliability of new scientific evidence which by reference to the grey bomber jacket (LH/5) and the multicoloured cardigan (ASR/2) closely links Dobson with the fatal attack on Stephen Lawrence. It does not and could not demonstrate that Dobson wielded the knife which caused the fatal wound, but given the circumstances of the attack on Stephen Lawrence - that is, a group of youths in a violent enterprise converging on a young man, and attacking him as a group - it would be open to a jury to conclude that any one of those who participated in the attack was party to the killing and guilty of murder, or alternatively manslaughter (a verdict which would, if there had been sufficient evidence, also have been available at the first trial).

If reliable, the new scientific evidence would place Dobson in very close proximity indeed to Lawrence at the moment of and in the immediate aftermath of the attack; proximity, moreover, for which no innocent explanation can be discerned.

13. On behalf of Dobson, Mr Timothy Roberts QC, in a meticulously careful submission, submitted that this evidence is unreliable and of no sufficient probative value, just because the results of the new examination of Dobson's clothing are likely to be the product of contamination over the years, that is, by contact with Stephen Lawrence's blood and his clothing. On this basis, even if scientific evidence is reliable, the apparent links are unconnected with Dobson's presence and involvement at the scene, but rather the result of outdated or incompetent storage or packaging or transporting arrangements, and therefore they are not probative at all, and certainly not highly probative.

14. Mr Roberts further highlighted that even if there was sufficient evidence to link his client with presence at the scene of the killing of Stephen Lawrence, it was unlikely Š after the huge wave of constant publicity over the years, directly identifying some of those suspected of the murder with involvement in the crime, be a fair trial. The constant stream of adverse publicity will make it impossible for the jury to approach their responsibilities with the necessary level of open-mindedness and fairness. There would be prejudice, either actual prejudice or unconscious prejudice.

15. After conducting a detailed examination of a large body of evidence, we have come to the conclusion that there is sufficient reliable and substantial new evidence to justify the quashing of the acquittal and to order a new trial. This decision means - and we emphasise that it means no more than that - the question whether Dobson had any criminal involvement in Stephen Lawrence's death must be considered afresh by a new jury, which will examine the evidence and decide whether the allegation against him is proved. The presumption of innocence continues to apply.

16. Our decision in relation to publicity is based on the material we have seen. The way in which publicity should be given to this judgment and indeed the subsequent trial must now be governed by the fact that there is indeed to be a new trial of a defendant who, we repeat, is presumed in law to be innocent. The proceedings are now active for the purposes of section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and care should be taken to ensure that any further reporting of this case must avoid any risk to the administration of public justice and the fairness of the forthcoming trial. It would probably be wise for any reporting of this decision to confine itself to the terms of the present judgment.

17. Subject to any further order, the full judgment of the court, which approaches 100 paragraphs in length, may be publicised in the usual way when the new trial is concluded.

Source
Vikram Dodd, guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 May 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/18/stephen-lawrence-trial-reporting-restrictions?intcmp=239