The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice

The abolition of the double jeopardy rule proposed by the Home Secretary David Blunkett would undermine the public confidence upon which our criminal justice system depends. For many centuries British citizens have surrendered to trial by jury because they knew that while they risked losing their liberty, an acquittal would clear their name and reputation forever.

By allowing the prosecution a second bite at the cherry, the police will be able to pursue a person until they achieve the verdict they want. Unpopular defendants may be endlessly prosecuted until the state secured a popular result. For this reason, the right not to be tried twice is enshrined in British criminal law; it dates back at least to the Magna Carta and has been adopted around the world.

The Government argues that its proposed changes would affect only a very few cases and that there would be safeguards in place to prevent any abuse by the prosecution. But the proposal goes much further than the recommendations of the Law Commission, which last year said that any relaxation of the rule should only take place in murder cases where there is compelling new evidence. Yesterday's White Paper proposed a much wider change in the law to include the retrial of those acquitted of murder, manslaughter, rape and armed robbery. Who can doubt that once we have become familiar with the idea of retrying defendants, the procedure would be quietly be extended?

Mr Blunkett argues that in an age of forensic science, such as the use of DNA to identify suspects, it is absurd to leave the known perpetrator of a serious crime at large. But this is misleading; there have always been people who, after being found innocent, have been indisputably linked to the crime they had been charged with. Some have even written proud accounts of their guilty deeds. None the less, this paper shares the belief that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.

During the consultation period ministers have failed to heed any of the alarm bells so loudly sounded by the legal profession. Yet it is barristers and solicitors who have most to gain from the reform by cashing in on the inevitable stampede of retrials. Both the Bar and the Law Society have warned that giving the police a second chance to build a case will lead to even poorer standards of investigation and more collapsed trials. And, ultimately, more miscarriages of justice.

There may be a limited number of celebrated cases in which compelling evidence points to the guilt of an acquitted defendant. But any political advantage gained from a second prosecution, even in such a high-profile case as the murder of Stephen Lawrence, would be short-lived and at the expense of an ancient principle of justice upon which our criminal justice system has been so soundly built.

Mr Blunkett's cavalier attitude to the double jeopardy rule is worrying. His wish to diminish trial by jury and to remove the right of a defendant not to have previous convictions introduced into evidence is also a concern. He should be concentrating on improving the work of the police and the prosecution, not on removing long-standing rights that protect the innocent.