Chief Justice Richard Ground believes the principle of the double jeopardy rule would be hard to change, but he said this week that lawmakers should consider amending the law to allow appeals of judicial acquittals.

And he would like to see smaller juries introduced to reduce the strain on members of the public forces to serve on multiple cases.

"I have no objection to changing (double jeopardy) on the principled ground that if some new evidence comes to light which could not reasonably have been discovered at the time of the first trial," Mr. Justice Ground said of double jeopardy, the principle by which a person acquitted of a crime cannot be retried for it.

"I don't see why a guilty person should get away on evidence which was hidden at the time of the first trial," the Chief Justice said. "But I understand the sensitivity of that and it's not something I'm pushing for.

"But, what I do think we should introduce and something I would push for, is that there should be a right of appeal in judicial acquittals."

Mr. Justice Ground said that prosecutors should be allowed to appeal a judge's decision that there is no case to answer ? as happened during the Rebecca Middleton trial.

"I don't see why there shouldn't be a right of appeal. It could happen by way of a simple legislative amendment," he said.

"If the judge knows that he can be appealed, he's more likely to make it a good decision because he knows that if he's right an appeal would be defeated. And, if he's wrong, he knows he will be put right.

"So my view is it would encourage judges to take the decisions that they think are right not withstanding the consequences."

He added: "I don't see any reasons why somebody who may be guilty should be able to avoid a full trial."

Mr. Justice Ground also wants to usher in an online case management system with the possibility of online filing of cases.

And he is looking for changes on the civil side too ? including updating the rules governing suing people abroad and giving judges power to assess injury damages to victims of crime.

"Instead of making the injured person wait until the full trial, which may take three years or more, a judge should be able at the outset to assess injury damages to give them something to be going along with," he said.

And the system could do with "charging orders" where a judge can order property be mortgaged to creditors.

"Instead of selling your house, which can be done, I might just want to have a mortgage over it ? which you could then pay off over time, which would suit you because your house wouldn't be sold."

Defendants in criminal cases should be given the option to choose trial by a single judge under certain conditions, he said.

"I like juries ? they are a good way of deciding criminal liabilities. I'm not saying do away with juries or anything like that."

But he added that the jury system could be tweaked.

"First of all I think a defendant should have the right to opt for trial by judge alone. Because in a small society a man's record may be known by everybody and he may feel he may not be given a fair trial.

"Or, there may be an offence which so outrages local opinion that he feels he wouldn't get a fair trial by jury. In such a case the defendant, not the prosecution, should be able to opt for trial by a judge alone."

He said he also wanted to see smaller juries because of the strain placed on the public in serving on multiple cases.

"It's a terrible imposition and one has to be sensitive to that," he said.

In most Overseas Territories, juries are seven strong except for murder trials where 12 members are needed.

"A reduction in jury size would go some way to relieving the strain on the public. It would mean that less people would have to do it."