People can now be tried more than once for murder or premeditated murder should new and compelling evidence come to light.

But the Court of Appeal Amendment Act 2010, which has now been passed, cannot be applied to cases from the past.

Attorney General Kim Wilson said such a move would go against Bermuda's Constitution, particularly section 6.4.

The section says a person should not be found guilty of a crime that was not considered an offence when they did it.

It also says no person can be handed a more severe penalty than the maximum allowed at the time the crime was committed.

The bill, which abolishes the double jeopardy rule, was debated in the Upper House last Wednesday.

Sen. Wilson said: "The violence presently plaguing Bermuda's shores is reflective of criminal offences spanning over a decade and which will see no person face conviction.

"There have been cases of unspeakable crimes where, had certain facts been adduced at trial, convictions may have been forthcoming.

"There have also been cases in which errors have occurred during proceedings and despite facts to the contrary such cases have been barred from retrial – even though the evidence of guilt is overwhelming."

But according to former AG Phil Perinchief, Senator Wilson has "misinterpreted, misread and misrepresented" section 6.4.

He said: "It speaks to new offences and new or greater penalties being imposed in respect of those new offences upon persons who at the time of a given act are protected from these new offences or greater penalties.

"Double jeopardy has nothing to do with this section and neither does retroactivity."

In addition, Mr. Perinchief said section 6.5 in the Constitution allows for a superior court to reopen a case that resulted in a conviction or acquittal in the past, if new evidence emerges.

"There is no time limit nor prohibition attached to this reopening and accordingly this section impliedly allows for retrospectivity and retroactivity," he said.

Sen. Wilson said in cases where a crime has been done but no one is prosecuted due to a technical defence, the public's idea of justice can be "damning".

People can lose confidence in the judicial system when violent crimes go unpunished and criminals are allowed to walk free, she explained.

But the approved amendment will ensure that as investigating crime technology becomes more sophisticated, prosecutions can still be made.

Evidence that was uncovered at the time of the original trial can then be used in a retrial.

Sen. Wilson said the amended law would be an "effective tool to counteract the injustice of guilty persons remaining free on the basis of a legal technicality".

She said: "The challenge of righting the wrongs of the past is always with us as is the necessity of contending with the present. It is proposed that this challenge is best overcome by doing all that is feasible to ensure that these wrongs are not repeated."

"There is a strong sentiment within the community that in the interest of justice, a mistake of law should be corrected; and that accuracy of outcome is more important that finality. Arguably, nowhere is this sentiment expressed more ardently than with respect to the offences of premeditated murder and murder.

"It is therefore proposed that such offences are suitable to be singled out by this exception as they are regarded as the most severe of the serious crimes and entail both an intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm."

In these times where violence is affecting all areas of the Island, the amendments are both "timely and essential" she added.

But Mr. Perinchief has questioned why other crimes such as serious sexual assault were not included in the bill.

He said: "Justice should be accorded all crime. What happens to rapists who are acquitted and new evidence is discovered that clearly points to the perpetrators? What was the rationale behind the 'policy decision and what policy was being advanced?"