Who fears the hand on the shoulder?

Here Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate tells why this campaign, in which he has been joined by The Northern Echo, is so important.

In the early-1990s, I spent a considerable part of my life as a member of the National Executive of the Police Superintendents' Association, campaigning with colleagues for a re-alignment of the criminal justice system of England and Wales.

I remember well the theme of our conference in 1993: "Justice on Trial".

We were the very first advocates of abolishing the old rule of "double jeopardy" which means that a person cannot be tried twice on the same facts. I remember at the time that we were pilloried by the legal profession because, it was alleged, we were advocating the abolition of an ancient and trusted safeguard against the abuse of justice.

The Superintendents' Association took what was then an unfashionable view that the reverse was true. We believed that where a person was acquitted of a serious offence by a court and the police subsequently discovered new and compelling evidence, it was a miscarriage of justice for him to bask in his freedom, often bragging or writing about the very crime of which he had been acquitted.

The whole basis of our position was of course from the standpoint of the victim, who, as I have often said, is the one participant in the justice system who is not a volunteer. Even recently in the Lords, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill which will end double jeopardy, I heard opponents of the change argue that the accused needed "closure" on the trial - that it wasn't fair on the accused to have the possibility of a second trial hanging over his head as he attempted to get on with his life.

But I would turn that round and make the important point that it is the victims (or in murder cases, their family) who require closure. They see that if no further action is taken in the face of new and compelling evidence, it may spare the feelings of the accused, but it is an affront to the justice system itself. Miscarriages of justice are indefensible whether they be wrongful acquittals or wrongful convictions.

In any event, our position was vindicated six years later when along came the report into the death of black teenager Stephen Lawrence when, on poor legal advice, a private prosecution was launched against three white youths who were subsequently acquitted of Stephen's murder. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, in his report into the murder investigation, recommended "that consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented".

This was followed by similar recommendations from Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts, the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs and also the Law Commission.

Game set and match to the reformers, you might think. But no. Lawyers are a very conservative bunch and, in my experience, the doing of justice is not always their top priority. Whatever merits our criminal trial system has, it is not a system, in my experience, which has as a major focus the search for truth.

As Lord Donaldson told the House of Lords at the Report Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, it is a popular misconception that if a person is found not guilty, he is innocent. Lord Donaldson was absolutely right: the verdict simply means that the prosecution has failed to discharge its obligation, for whatever reason, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps the most persuasive case in my mind is the North-East murder of pizza delivery girl, Julie Hogg, which also interested The Northern Echo. She disappeared from home and her body was discovered by her mother Anne Ming, some three months later, hidden behind the bath in Julie's house. Billy Dunlop, who lived nearby, was charged with, and acquitted of, her murder. He later made admissions that he had killed Julie, but could only be tried for giving perjured evidence at his trial for murder. He was sentenced to six years in prison for perjury.

Mrs Ming has campaigned tirelessly since then, with the help of The Northern Echo, Stockton North MP Frank Cook and myself, to change the law retrospectively so that justice would be done in Julie's case to bring closure for her family. We even had a meeting in Parliament with Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, who gave the campaign his unswerving support.

To pass the law without retrospection would have created massive injustice, not just in the Julie Hogg case, but in many others. It was argued by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in the Lords that "those who are acquitted in the future... will know that acquittal does not mean that they cannot be tried again. Therefore, there is no unfairness or justice. The injustice applies to those who were convicted in the past and who have lived in the belief that they cannot be tried again" even in the face of new and compelling evidence.

Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws argued powerfully against the change, stating that "people who are still alive who have been acquitted of serious crime... will fear the hand on the shoulder, the terror that is created by not allowing people to have a fresh start after an acquittal". Again, little consideration of the victims of serious crime. It is as though justice only applies to the alleged perpetrator and not the victim - something I have railed against for all my police service.

It is not as though the police continually are going to have several bites at the cherry. There are safeguards built into the Bill:

* the personal consent of the DPP will be required for a second prosecution;

* the Court of Appeal will have to be satisfied that there is new and compelling evidence and that a retrial is in the interests of justice;

* only one retrial will be allowed.

In the event, their Lordships agreed by 68 votes to 45 to abolish the double jeopardy rule retrospectively, thereby signalling to criminals that, even if they are acquitted, they will live with the knowledge that if new and compelling evidence is discovered, they can still be brought to justice.

The innocent have nothing to fear from such a change. In an age of rapid scientific advances, it is however reassuring for members of the public, and a real deterrent for those who commit serious crime, to know that there is no hiding place and that such offenders will still experience the hand on the shoulder. That is justice.