Former Attorney General Phil Perinchief has called for law reforms in light of the Kellon Hill murder case.

Mr. Perinchief said the recent case coupled with the scandal over the Becky Middleton case 13 years ago shows change is necessary.

He believes prosecutors should be able to appeal when a judge says a defendant has no case to answer, as they can in the UK. At present, the Court of Appeal can only hear appeals on matters of law, not on matters of fact or other issues.

Mr. Perinchief also wants what he describes as the "archaic" double jeopardy rule lifted. This prevents a defendant being tried a second time for the same offence. It has already been lifted in the UK, where there can be a retrial if fresh and compelling evidence comes to light.

The trial judge in the Hill case, Justice Charles-Etta Simmons, ruled that four of the five youngsters originally charged with murdering 18-year-old Mr. Hill should be discharged before the matter went to the jury last month. She said after hearing the prosecution case that there was not enough evidence against them for them to have a case to answer.

Mr. Hill suffered multiple injuries and stab wounds in an attack that allegedly saw bike helmets, a walking cane, a screwdriver and a knife used against him as he left a late-night beach party last August.

The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the fifth youth accused of the slaying, and there may be a retrial, depending on a decision expected soon from the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, the first four cannot not be retried due to the double jeopardy rule.

Mr. Perinchief, who was Attorney General from 2006 until 2007, told The Royal Gazette: "I fully support the call for a revisiting of both the double jeopardy rule and prosecution appeal of the 'no case to answer' finding of judges. I supported it when I was the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and I support it now."

He said that at present, defendants are permitted to go free "only on the findings, rightly or wrongly, of one person the judge. We should not repose that much authority in one person".

In addition, he said, the double jeopardy rule means that even if the Court of Appeal was able to find a judge had made the wrong decision, a retrial is barred.

The current legal restrictions were highlighted in the Middleton case when they stopped the Privy Council the highest court of appeal for Bermuda from overturning the controversial decision of a judge to throw out a murder case against one of the accused.

Rebecca was found dying at a remote spot in Ferry Reach, St. George's on July 3, 1996, having been raped and stabbed while on vacation from her home in Canada. The fact that no one has been brought to justice for the slaying sparked negative publicity about Bermuda's judicial system both at home and abroad.

Kirk Mundy a Jamaican then aged 21 and Justis Smith a Bermudian then aged 19 were arrested days later. Mundy was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of accessory after the fact before forensic tests were complete, and was jailed for five years.

When new evidence later came in allegedly linking him to the killing, the Privy Council rejected a bid by prosecutors to have him face a fresh charge of murder. Meanwhile, the murder case against Smith was thrown out before a jury had chance to consider it, by Judge Vincent Meerabux, who said there was no case to answer. The Privy Council later criticised him for this "surprising" and "perhaps astonishing" decision, saying there was strong circumstantial evidence. Nonetheless, it ruled the decision could not be overturned and a retrial ordered because in Bermuda there is no right of appeal by the prosecution following a finding by a judge of 'no case to answer' on the facts.

The Opposition United Bermuda Party pressed two years ago for the law to be changed, but was thwarted by opposition from the Government benches. Junior Justice Minister Michael Scott said the plan made dangerous inroads into the rights of defendants not to be unfairly pursued by the prosecuting authorities.

The UBP has indicated that it plans to try again when Parliament resumes in November. However, Mr. Perinchief said he raised the topic himself in the party caucus when he was Attorney General and found some support although not majority support. He hopes that support has grown and Government itself will soon spearhead the reforms.

"When it came to caucus there was a relatively thorough discussion, or at least there was a discussion and the consensus of caucus at that time was that the issue be revisited at a later time. Perhaps that time has come," he said.

However, Mr. Perinchief noted that such law reforms would be unlikely to affect cases that had already been dealt with, and would only have an effect going forward.

John Barritt of the UBP, who tabled the unsuccessful attempt to change the law in 2007, said: "Frankly, I thought there was more support than there was the last time I brought this forward. I am minded to bring the amendment to the Court of Appeal Act forward again with the support of my colleagues and at their encouragement, and hopefully with support from the Government benches.

"I have not had the opportunity to canvas yet, members on the other side to ascertain likely support, but I would like to think that in light of recent events they would see the merit in the amendment which will simply give the prosecution the same rights of appeal as the defence.

"For those who express concern and are concerned over the change I would say this: it only grants a right of appeal to the prosecution, it does not guarantee a new trial or a retrial, there remains the wise heads and the experience of the senior judges who sit in the Court of Appeal who will decide whether or not there is merit in the appeal in all the circumstances of the case. I happen to think this change to our criminal law is long, long overdue."