Defence lawyers have spoken out on the Governor's plans to review the legal system - and warned that not all emphasis should be placed on the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

They contacted The Royal Gazette in response to a series of stories about concern over a number of high profile criminal cases where no one has been convicted - the latest being the 2001 murder of Tekle Mallory.

They said it was wrong to automatically blame juries, as some people had done, because, in most cases, they discharged of their duties properly.

And they said implications that jury members were not always intelligent were insulting and totally wrong.

Juries, they said, could only go on the evidence they were presented with.

The defence lawyers said it was not the job of the DPP to ensure convictions were realised, but merely to present the facts.

And it was for the Police to find the facts.

Governor Sir John Vereker has called for a review of the whole system and is interviewing key players to find out where improvements need to be made.

Lawyer Larry Scott said: "It is not the duty of the DPP or his staff to ensure convictions and my experience as a defence counsel, when up against the Crown prosecutors, has shown that they are always resolute in their presentation of their case, but dispassionate.

"The evidence to hand in any trial before our courts is gathered by the Police, not the DPP - they can only present that evidence at trial.

"It is the Police who gather evidence, and if the Police are having difficulties gathering evidence, then any number of reasons can be advanced for why they are can't muster sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury of the guilt of an accused person."

He said he did not believe the Police Service was wholly failing, but said there were internal structural problems that had to be addressed.

Lawyer Patrick Doherty, who represented acquitted murder accused Everett Jahni Bean in the Tekle Mallory case, said he took exception to suggestions his client was cleared because of the standard of the jury.

Mr. Bean was acquitted after Assistant Justice Archibald Warner deemed there to be insufficient evidence against him.

"In that murder case, I think the judge and the jury made what I believe were the correct decisions in law, as far as my client was concerned. There simply was no credible evidence that a jury could convict upon. Cases like the Mallory case, where we have a young man killed, are not easy for juries, but I think Bermuda juries take those matters very seriously."

Mr. Doherty called for a victim's assistance office to keep victims and their families abreast of criminal cases, and to warn them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt had to be shown for a conviction.

Mr. Doherty said victims should be warned that not all defendants are found guilty.

And a third lawyer, who would not be named, questioned what standards the DPP were using to lay charges.

He said: "Is it that they have a substantial likelihood of a conviction, or that they want to do it because the Police tell them to?

"Or is it because the prosecutors think the suspect did it? There have to be standards applied and I don't think there are always proper standards applied in cases, and, from what I know about the Tekle Mallory murder, I don't think there were proper standards applied.

"There were still many questions outstanding on that case, and I believe the case was not investigated thoroughly enough before charges were brought. There did not appear to be good enough evidence presented to the court.

"If the evidence is not there in any investigation, the prosecution has to ask the Police to go back and get more evidence and more statements before any charges are laid. Rushing charges does not win cases."