BOTH our front page today and this page highlight some of this country's most renowned miscarriages of justice.
Thankfully, these wrongful convictions were eventually overturned. Innocent people were freed when compelling new evidence came to light.
The appeals system rightly remains a cornerstone of our judicial process.
It is an important safety mechanism for those rare occasions when the courts get it wrong.
But why should this principle apply only to those wrongly convicted? Why can it not be applied to those wrongly acquitted?
The tragic case of Julie Hogg, brutally murdered in 1989 demonstrates the flaws in the principle of 'double jeopardy', which prevents a person acquitted of an offence being re-tried for that offence.
Billy Dunlop was cleared of killing Julie, but later admitted lying in court and confessed to her murder.
Despite such compelling evidence, Dunlop is protected by double jeopardy and cannot be tried again.
Last week we welcomed the recommendation from the Home Affairs Select Committee of MPs to abandon double jeopardy and make the changes retrospective.
Today Julie's mother Ann Ming will meet Home Secretary Jack Straw, to plead with him to support the committee's proposals.
We offer her our total support, and urge Mr Straw to listen closely to someone who has been a victim of a miscarriage of justice every bit as agonising as that endured by the Birmingham Six or the Guildford Four.
For a system of justice to admit that mistakes are made and to right any wrongs is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Lessons have been learned from recent miscarriages of justice. Appeal processes have been streamlined, and prosecution procedures tightened up. As a result, our legal system has improved.
Likewise lessons must be learned from the Julie Hogg case; just like there can be unsafe convictions, there can be unsafe acquittals.
Our country must no longer distinguish between miscarriages of justice which imprison innocent men and women, and those which shield a self-confessed killer from justice.
Mr Straw should act, and act decisively, to close such a blatant loophole in the law.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article