THE Northern Echo's campaign for a review of the double jeopardy law - one of the cornerstones of the British criminal justice system - was not launched without reservations.

We acknowledged the dangers in enabling defendants to be tried a second time for offences of which they had been cleared.

But we believed they were outweighed by the basic unfairness of a system which allows wrongful convictions - such as in the cases of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Bridgewater Three - to be overturned, yet prevents wrongful acquittals to go unchallenged.

The law must continually be reviewed and updated. Six years ago, this newspaper played its part in overturning the ancient and nonsensical 366-day rule which prevented attackers from facing murder or manslaughter charges if their victims lived for more than a year.

In the hi-tech age of life-support systems, there was a clear need for the law to be brought up to date and - through the immense courage of Darlington mother Pat Gibson and the support of our readers - the rule was scrapped.

Similarly, double jeopardy was established centuries before forensic science provided detectives with huge advances in the fight against crime. Again, the law required modernisation.

But we have always insisted that defendants must only be re-tried in exceptional circumstances - when compelling new evidence comes to light.

In the case of Billy Dunlop, cleared of killing North-East woman Julie Hogg, that new evidence is nothing to do with forensic science. It is simply the fact that he admitted lying in court and confessed to the killing.

Although sentenced to six years in prison for perjury, he could not be re-tried for murder because of the double jeopardy rule.

That may now change because of the Home Secretary's bold proposal to abolish the rule retrospectively.

We congratulate David Blunkett for having the courage to take this step. We also applaud the strength of another campaigning mother, Ann Ming, for fighting for justice with such dignity.

It is a change in the law which must be handled with extreme care. But it is a change in the law which provides greater balance in our criminal justice system.