I accept entirely that the victims of crime suffer very much. Indeed, in certain instances, a victim—if he is alive—is entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The state has provided for that, even though a personal injury claim might not be possible. I fully accept that many people suffer very much through the criminal justice system. However, we are concerned with a decision taken by Parliament that, contrary to our normal rules and practices, and for reasons that we think are justified by public policy, it may be necessary for someone to be put through the trial process twice, even though his first acquittal was, on the face of it, completely regular, and could not be quashed for any reason of procedural irregularity.

We are not talking about cases in which someone is tried twice because the jury could not return a verdict. That is covered by the ordinary rules of procedure, and sometimes must be borne. We are considering a completely new regime, and I am bound to say that if the state does not succeed on the second occasion in achieving the result that it has thought right, and the jury acquit, it will be a bold man who maintains that the person is guilty, so he must be entitled to the protections that his acquitted status gives him, one of which is to be compensated for being put through the process again. Compensation should be reasonable, not punitive, and should reflect the inconvenience that the person has suffered, and doubtless his loss of income for that period.

Parliament must send out an important message that it does not embark on this process lightly. It is simply saying that people can be retried as a matter of routine when the state thinks that they should because it believes that they have committed serious offences. There is a need for a compensatory mechanism. I commend the Amendment to the Committee.