THE Government's promise to end the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents people being tried more than once for the same offence, is long overdue.

When it was enshrined in our justice system eight centuries ago, the principle was appropriate. It protected innocent people from persecution.

It has no place, however, in the 21st Century, where rapid advances in detection techniques and forensic science can turn up brand new evidence on old crimes.

If it is right for new evidence to be used to free innocent people wrongly convicted, then it is surely also right for it to be used to convict guilty people.

But the notion of double jeopardy must only be by-passed in exceptional circumstances involving serious crimes, and only when a high court has concluded that compelling new evidence should go before a jury.

We must never reach the situation where the police can endlessly prosecute defendants until they get the "right" result. The legal system of our country has already witnessed some spectacular miscarriages of justice. We do not need a reform which will encourage even more.

But, on balance, the reform outlined in the Queen's Speech is in the interests of justice.

We are delighted that the Government has listened to The Northern Echo's Criminal Injustice Campaign, and the recommendations of both the Law Commission and the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

It remains to be seen whether the reform will be retrospective. We hope it will be.

And, if new Home Secretary David Blunkett is unsure of whether the double jeopardy should still apply for past crimes, he should study the tragic case of Julie Hogg.

A decade ago, Billy Dunlop was acquitted of the killing. Since then, he has confessed to the crime before a court, but the double jeopardy law has prevented him from facing a further trial.

Affording protection to a self-confessed killer like Billy Dunlop is a flagrant abuse of the principle of double jeopardy, and a graphic illustration of why any reform must be retrospective.