Government backbencher Dale Butler's vote against the Progressive Labour Party Whip on Friday on a motion supporting a change to the double jeopardy law is likely to go unpunished.

Government Whip Ottiwell Simmons said last night no disciplinary action will be taken against Mr. Butler, who broke a three-line whip.

"I suppose a three line whip is where it is determined that all of the Government representatives should abide by the position Government has taken," he said.

"And notwithstanding any reluctance one might have or position of morality or principle, a three line whip disregards all of that," Mr. Simmons explained.

"A three line whip is a situation that is declared when there might be a feeling that an individual or a minority group might want to go in a way that differs from what the party's position is.

"I personally have no intention of imposing discipline on anybody. We are growing with this experience. We don't have it everyday."

But Mr. Simmons added that the "matter does not stop there".

"There will be discussion to sort out the whole principle and to try to make sure we are all in unison."

During Friday's debate Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt hinted at the possibility of introducing an actual bill that would make changes to the double jeopardy rule.

Mr. Barritt's motion, had it succeeded, would have had no immediate effect on Bermuda's laws.

Mr. Butler said that on a subject as important as the criminal justice system, he would not follow party lines purely because the motion had not been tabled by a Government member.

The outspoken member, who has a reputation for speaking his mind, said he would not abstain from voting, disappear when the vote began, or vote in Government's favour. He said: "I'm going to rock the boat and support this motion and I'm not going to leave the House, as some members do (when it is time to vote).

"It's fair, it's practical and it makes good sense. I'm supporting this motion and I guess I'm going to be labelled reactionary, and, to that I say `tough'.

"From where I sit, this is a crucial issue. It's an important issue and it's a fundamental part of our society that believes in fairness and justice.

"I feel that I represent New Labour - a new way of doing things. It's based on responsibility. We seem to want to throw that to the wind."

He said it was not right that perpetrators of serious crimes who "got off" in court should be allowed to walk the streets for the rest of their lives when new evidence had come to light to prove their guilt.

He added: "We are responsible to the whole of society and not just to the person who was able to get away with the law. I represent law and order to prevent anarchy.

"On this particular issue, more than any other, I happen to agree. Over the years, something has happened to our legal system. That is why we are here, to address fresh law."

He said there were more and more questions being asked about the ability of the Police, prosecutors and members of the judiciary, so, more than ever, the justice system needed to be protected and checked.

And he said people should remember that this rule would apply to both those people who have been convicted and who can prove their guilt, as well as those who were acquitted before fresh and compelling evidence came to light.

Mr. Butler said the new evidence would not merely be rumour, gossip, inuendo, suspicions or clairvoyancy, it would have to be fresh and compelling, and he said it would be up the judiciary whether or not the evidence was good enough to be command a re-trial.

Of the motion, Mr. Butler said: "It's not abhorrent, its not revolutionary and it's not out of line. That's why I'm going to support it.

"This motion sends a clear message to the smart-assed lawyers and smart-assed accused who get off when we have this fresh and compelling evidence that can prove their guilt."

But while the ruling Progressive Labour Party (PLP) was fully aware that Mr. Barritt's motion had some appeal for some of its own members, like Wayne Perinchief and Neletha Butterfield were not present when it came time to vote. Another, Stanley Morton, praised John Barritt for an "excellent presentation" but voted against it anyway.

Mr. Perinchief - a former senior Police detective who has in the past expressed support for changing the rule to allow a retrial if fresh and compelling evidence is presented - said during the debate that the wording of the motion was "too narrow".