Justice campaigners and politicians have questioned why the abolition of the "double jeopardy" rule on murder and manslaughter cases will not be made retroactive.

As The Royal Gazette reported yesterday, legislation will be tabled in the House of Assembly on Friday that will allow prosecutors to take cases to the Court of Appeal in future when strong new evidence — such as DNA — emerges after a not guilty verdict has been returned.

It will also enable prosecutors to challenge judges' rulings that there is no case to answer in murder and manslaughter trials.

Prosecutors have long complained that under the current law they are unable to reopen trials such as the botched Becky Middleton murder case, where fresh evidence comes to light after the court case concluded or a judge makes a controversial 'no case' decision. When double jeopardy was abolished in the UK five years ago, the law change was made retroactive, meaning a number of unsolved cases predating the law reform have resulted in retrials.

However, Attorney General Kim Wilson said Bermuda's new law will not be retroactive — meaning it will only apply to cases going forward, and will not help in the Middleton case and other unsolved cases where someone has already been tried and acquitted.

Sen. Wilson said last night that the lack of retroactivity was a policy decision made by the Government based on existing constitutional provisions aimed at preventing a person being punished twice for an offence arising out of the same set of facts or tried repeatedly for offences arising out of the same circumstances.

Carol Shuman, a campaigner for justice in the Middleton case, said yesterday: "Of course, this is excellent news, and while it has taken far too long, Bermuda has an opportunity to change a situation that has been allowing murderers to sigh with relief for far too long."

But she noted: "The law will affect only future cases. Therefore Rebecca's human rights claims must remain unchanged. I am pleased that future victims' families may not face such agony; however, it is inappropriate to forget past injustices."

Lawyer and politician Mark Pettingill, from Bermuda Democratic Alliance, said: "Certainly we are pleased. This is an example of something we have called for for some time. It is certainly an antiquated rule since the advent of new technology such as DNA and forensic evidence. We have to applaud that, but the fact that it would not be retroactive makes no sense to me at all because here, as in England, there are a number of cold cases.

"Also, this cuts both ways. It could bring guilty people to justice but of course it could also free people that have been wrongly accused. The sensible approach would have been if you put that [law] into play, it would have to be retroactive. To say we are not making it retroactive is only going half way."

United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt has campaigned for several years for the double jeopardy rule to be changed. He has pushed for amendments to the Court of Appeal Act on two occasions in the past but had them rejected by the PLP Government.

Mr. Barritt had a further bill waiting on the order paper before Sen. Wilson's announcement and yesterday expressed concern over whether the Government bill goes far enough.

"It's different to what I proposed. I wanted to give the prosecution a general right of appeal on cases and leave it to the appellant court to decide what leave should be granted," he explained. "They [Government] appear to be limiting it to one crime, murder, and only where there's compelling evidence that wasn't available at trial. And they are not proposing that it be made retroactive. I have an open mind on that. Under my bill it would be up to the appellant court whether leave would be granted, and a body of law would be built up."

Mr. Barritt said he now needed to reconsult with his party colleagues and Government before deciding whether to back Sen. Wilson's bill.

Sen. Wilson said her proposed bill would amend the Court of Appeal Act 1964, providing an exception to the established rule against double jeopardy in cases where a person has been tried for murder or premeditated murder and discharged, acquitted or convicted of a lesser offence in the Supreme Court.

The Justice Minister added: "As a matter of policy, the Government decided that the areas in which the proposed amendments would apply are with respect to charges on indictment for premeditated murder and murder and [it] is not intended to extend to designated serious crimes, as is the case in the UK."