Veteran United Bermuda Party MP John Barritt has put his double jeopardy bill on the back burner to ensure it doesn't derail a similar bill by Attorney General Kim Wilson.

Mr. Barritt launched a debate on his Court of Appeal Amendment Act — telling the House of Assembly on Friday that prosecutors should be allowed to take cases to appeal when fresh and compelling evidence comes to light.

However, after it emerged the Progressive Labour Party opposed the bill, Mr. Barritt moved to rise and report progress instead of taking a vote he would inevitably lose.

It's now expected Government's double jeopardy bill will be debated this week: a similar piece of legislation but, unlike Mr. Barritt's, relating only to murder and attempted murder.

If Mr. Barritt's bill had been voted down, House rules mean there could have been no debate on Sen. Wilson's bill until November.

Both bills were drafted after prosecutors complained under the current law they are unable to reopen trials such as the botched Becky Middleton murder case, where new evidence has been discovered after somebody has been acquitted.

On Friday, UBP and Bermuda Democratic Alliance MPs spoke in support of Mr. Barritt's legislation, with the PLP coming under attack as only Culture Minister Neletha Butterfield entered the discussion.

PLP members said there was no point debating because Government has similar legislation prepared anyway; Mr. Barritt, whose private members' bill has been on the order paper since last November, said by putting his bill forward he was trying to get the debate going early.

He told the House the "three wise heads" of the Court of Appeal should be able to decide whether a case can be reopened.

"We think that the time has come to allow the prosecution the same rights of appeal as the defence," said Mr. Barritt.

UBP deputy leader Trevor Moniz said the legislation was on the right track and he couldn't see how any right-thinking person could possibly vote against such a bill.

The next speaker, Mark Pettingill of the BDA, appeared to sense the PLP wasn't going to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Pettingill said he backed the bill and called for Government to reveal why it doesn't like it.

"At least this bill deserves the recognition of being commented on. If you don't want to support it, that's one thing, but to stick your head in the sand and say you are not contributing to the debate is insulting to us as legislators," he said.

"This should not be a political football. This is about good law, real justice, real integrity, about going down the road we need to go down."

His party colleague Shawn Crockwell went a step further by singling out Wayne Furbert as someone he'd like to hear from.

Mr. Crockwell said Mr. Furbert often speaks about his own daughter, and that anyone who has children should be able to understand why the law needs changing.

Education Minister Elvin James called out: "We have a piece of legislation of our own," but Mr. Crockwell argued the two were different.

"If we pass this bill in addition to the bill that's coming in due course, we will be serving this country well," said Mr. Crockwell.

Shadow Works Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin said the bill reflects the spirit that no innocent people should be in jail, and no guilty people should be set free.

She said she wouldn't be able to look victims' families in the eye if she didn't back it.

Ms Butterfield said: "I have sat here and I have listened and listened well, and also heard the comments to what we should do and get up and say.

"Sometimes I wonder if when we come to this House we get a little mischievous.

"I see that the Government has on the order paper, number 12 [Sen. Wilson's bill]. The public needs to know today that this Government has tabled something that we will debate.

"We can tell you this evening that we will not be supporting this bill."

UBP leader Kim Swan spoke in support of victims' families who have not received justice, while defendants are able to get highly paid lawyers.

"We have got to step away from the politics which is preventing us from doing the right thing today," he said.

Donte Hunt of the BDA said he was dismayed at the silence from the PLP.

"I would have expected that members of Government would have taken to their feet and said something from their perspective, whether they agree or disagree," said Mr. Hunt.

"Is it because an Opposition member took the time to take a bill? It's almost like a soccer match. If it's not from our side, we are not going to support, we are not going to speak on it. We are just going to say we disagree.

"If it's that, the public has it right. We are up here playing politics as usual. I find Government's lack of support for this particular bill atrocious."

Concluding the debate, Mr. Barritt said Ms Butterfield was wrong to call him mischievous.

"I wanted to see what it might evoke from the Government because I honestly understand there was a rethink going on," he said.

"I'm well aware there's another bill on the order paper, to have an incursion much more limited than the one before us today. It's not retroactive, and it limits itself to murder and attempted murder.

"I wanted to start the debate, not just from members in the House but in the general public as well. How far we should go."

He said he would rise and report progress to ensure neither bill falls victim to party politics, meaning his bill will remain on the order paper.