THE leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, has demanded that the right of people not to be tried twice for the same crime should be rescinded.

Mr Hague has suggested that, in the light of the events surrounding the Stephen Lawrence case, there is an overwhelming argument for repealing the law on 'double jeopardy'.

In 1996, two people were arrested, tried and acquitted for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence. Now, evidence has come to light that suggests these acquittals were wrong.

It seems to me that the police (and by implication, the Crown Prosecution Service), who were severely censured over their investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder, want the penny and the bun.

Notwithstanding the disgust and antipathy that one might feel for the perpetrators of this crime, I cannot but sense an enormous amount of misgivings should this legal safeguard be removed from the Statute Book.

It is not simply the matter of the Stephen Lawrence case, important though that most certainly is.

It is that for anyone to undergo a second trial for the same crime has to put undue strain and pressure on that individual and his or her family.

Linked to this has to be deleterious effect of a second trial on any witnesses concerned.

Also, the press and media coverage of the first trial has to put the impartiality of a second jury in some doubt.

I am sure that Mr Hague is an honourable man and that his motives in pursuing this matter are nothing but altruistic.

His pronouncements following the London May Day riots could not, surely, have had anything to do with promoting his well-known Right Wing views? Also, the improved showing of electoral support for the Tory Party in the recent local elections did not, surely, encourage him in this stance?

Or, am I being too hard on the man?

If you look at the wider picture, with the abolition of the right to trial by jury, majority instead of unanimous verdicts, etc, it must be worrying that traditional protection for the accused (built up over centuries, by the way) is being eroded to an unfortunate degree.

In this particular instance the public might feel that 'the law is an ass', but what of the future?

Who is to say that this or that case must be tried again?

I share with many people a deeply felt concern that criminals are getting away with murder.

However, it cannot be just that established, constitutional rights are swept away for short-term (and possibly party political) gain.

Rather, should the powers of the police to collect and introduce evidence into court be less susceptible to defence manipulation.

It seems to me that the lamb of common sense is being increasingly sacrificed on the altar of political dogma.

What has been built up over a millennium must not be torn down by the exigencies of the moment.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.