Consign law to the scrapheap of history

THOSE who oppose proposals to scrap the double jeopardy law which prevents a person standing trial twice for the same crime do so on the basis that the verdict of a jury is sacrosanct.

But that is wholly misconceived because if an accused person is convicted of murder and new and compelling evidence comes to light after his conviction which was not available at the time of his trial he can seek to have the verdict overturned.

Conversely, if someone is acquitted of murder and new and compelling evidence comes to light after his acquittal clearly demonstrating that he could be guilty of the offence then it is only right in the public interest that there should be a retrial for a new jury to consider the evidence.

An accused person has endless opportunities to challenge his conviction and currently the public has none to challenge his acquittal. That cannot by right. Kenny MacAskill has taken the correct decision with the appropriate safeguards to allow a retrial in certain circumstances.

The historic argument against scrapping double jeopardy was based in a time when the accused had little access to justice.

Now that has all changed.

In addition advances in technology - DNA, CCTV and forensic evidence - which may come to light after a conviction have all given weight behind the need to have the double jeopardy law changed.

• Paul McBride is one of Scotland's leading QCs.