THE rule of double jeopardy is centuries old. It was a virtuous principle, a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, which offered protection for the individual from the abuse of the state.

In essence, it prevented the state from trying a person over and over again until the 'right' verdict was reached.

Its virtues outweighed the disadvantage that, on occasions, guilty men and women were not brought to justice.

However, the principle does not have the same merits in the 21st century.

The revolution in forensic science and continual advances in the resources available to the police mean that new evidence can come to light in the investigation of old cases.

There are frequent examples where serious crimes, dating back several years and sometimes several decades, have been solved and the criminal eventually brought to justice.

Why should a person escape justice simply because he has been tried and acquitted previously?

We fully support the abolition of double jeopardy, as outlined in the new Criminal Justice Bill.

The safeguard that a retrial can only be ordered when the Court of Appeal considers that compelling new evidence has come to light is sufficient to ensure that there will be no abuse of power. It ensures that the police can not press for a re-trial without good reason.

For those who argue that double jeopardy still has a place in the modern age, we refer them to the killing of Julie Hogg.

Billy Dunlop was cleared of her murder, but subsequently admitted being responsible for her death. Because of double jeopardy, it has not been possible for Dunlop to stand trial again for murder.

This tragic case highlights precisely why double jeopardy should be abolished and why the abolition should be retrospective.

It would be a fitting tribute to Julie Hogg and her family that they are among the first to see justice achieved as a result of this particular reform.