Yet again we find a miscarriage of justice dominating the news pages, yet again it is down to flawed scientific evidence. It is impossible not to feel the most enormous sympathy for what Sally Clark has gone through - surely there can be few experiences more horrific than being falsely jailed for the murder of two babies you loved.

Similarly, I feel enormous admiration for the determination of her husband to take on the system and prove his wife's innocence.

But among these twin emotions is the nagging concern of how our legal system has allowed yet another travesty to slip through the net. I thought the lessons of the Birmingham Six fiasco were supposed to put an end to such miscarriages of justice.

The Clark case came down to an eminent paediatrician stating the chances of a family suffering a double cot death were 73 million to one and an eminent pathologist stating there was no evidence to suggest the deaths were due to a medical condition.

Asked to choose between two experts with qualifications coming out of their ears or a mother who simply said she didn't do it, it is hardly surprising the majority of jurors put their faith in science.

Now, thanks to the diligence of Mr Clark, we know the true chances of a double cot death are as low as 100 to one and that medical evidence withheld from the jury indicated one of the Clark babies may have died of meningitis.

Amidst the relief that justice has finally prevailed - and that Britain does not have a death penalty - there are now assurances from the legal profession of changes to ensure such a miscarriage never happens again.

But, personally, I want to see a commitment to ensure the same flaws do not lead to injustice in thousands of lower profile hearings every year.

Up and down the country in industrial tribunals or work disciplinary hearings, defendants are constantly fighting with one hand behind their backs because they have not been served with the disclosure to which they are entitled.

Obviously the unjust results do not compare with being branded a child killer, but no one should underestimate how devastating the effects can be.

Loss of livelihood, pension and home are the financial implications but there is also the personal cost. Broken relationships, end of career, health problems and disgrace in the eyes of the public and colleagues - all unwarranted and unjust.

The difficulty in these cases is that many of the hearings take place in secret, often there is no legal aid, no appeal and there are no punishments for the prosecutors who knowingly withhold evidence.

I feel the shadow of the European courts looming large unless we get our act in order and ensure disclosure is taken seriously by Britain's bosses and barristers.

I wonder whether the disgraced pathologist in the Sally Clark case would have withheld evidence if he knew future exposure would result in his own incarceration?

And will a lawyer in an employment tribunal happily sit on sensitive company documents if he knows he personally will go to jail if they are proved at a later date to contain information vital to the case of a wrongly sacked worker?