Michael Howard: Justice outweighs other arguments

Michael Howard, Conservative MP for Folkstone and Hythe, was home secretary from 1993 to 1997.

He backs changing the double jeopardy rule and says the case for doing so is much stronger now than when he was at the Home Office.

Labour's attack on William Hague's 'knee-jerk populism' is just a knee-jerk response from the party.

---

By Michael Howard

Justice and the law should go together and the present double jeopardy rule is an example of them not necessarily doing so.

I have never really understood that phrase 'hard cases make bad law'

If you have a situation in which someone is acquitted and new information subsequently becomes available, possibly of the most compelling kind - DNA is the obvious example - which demonstrates that they were guilty of the crime concerned, justice demands that they are convicted of that crime.

The double jeopardy rule in those circumstances is an example of the way in which the law can impede justice.

It is an affront to victims of crime and their families, and indeed to respect for the criminal justice system as a whole, if they are simply told that because of what is undoubtedly a technicality nothing can be done in these circumstances to bring the guilty to justice.

The objective of any system of criminal justice should be to bring the guilty to book for the crimes they have committed. It is of course necessary to have safeguards which will protect the innocent but that is hardly a relevant consideration in this particular instance.

Stronger case for change

The case for changing the law has strengthened in recent months. The rule itself has attracted greater prominence in the light of last year's report from the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which included a recommendation that it be looked at again.

The greater use of DNA has also made the rule more relevant. I established the first national DNA database in the world and changed the law so as to enable the police to take samples from people convicted of crime.

This was in the early days for DNA. We now have a much clearer idea of how valuable it can be and so the case for looking at the double jeopardy rule again is that much stronger.

Labour has attacked William Hague's suggestion that the rule be changed as "knee-jerk populism". That is just a knee-jerk response on Labour's part. It is not even an attack on the idea behind William's proposal.

Another objection has come from civil libertarians arguing that "hard cases make bad law". I have never really understood that phrase. I do not think it is a very apt one.

We have to look at the arguments both ways. There are certainly arguments against changing the law, the principle one being to achieve finality.

But that is outweighed by the need to do justice.