Plans for a radical overhaul of the UK's criminal justice system have been announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

Re-trials will be allowed for serious offences such as murder, rape and armed robbery when "compelling" new evidence such as DNA comes to light, Mr Blunkett told MPs.

The change - which affects England and Wales - will be retrospective, so suspects who have already been acquitted could find themselves back in the dock.

Other proposals include keeping dangerous or violent offenders in prison indefinitely, and allowing trial without a jury in serious fraud cases.

Civil rights campaigners have called the plans a "wholesale assault on civil liberties."

What will the changes mean for you? Is the criminal justice system working?

We put your questions to John Cooper, a barrister and committee member of the Bar Council, in a LIVE forum for the BBC's Six O'clock news, presented by Manisha Tank.

Transcript

Manisha Tank:
Welcome to the Six O'clock forum. Many out there believe that Britain's criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul - indeed, Home Secretary David Blunkett, has been unveiling his plans for a revamp of the system. Among the proposals on the table, a complete change, or perhaps scrapping even the double jeopardy rule, which has been around for some 800 years or so and even eliminating trial by jury but only in specific cases.

I have here your e-mails, questions, text messages about the subject and putting them to John Cooper, who is a barrister and committee member of the Bar Council.

First of all there have obviously been some general questions on the subject. We've got an e-mail in from Ray: It about time the victims of crime were put first. If it can be proved beyond doubt that a person is guilty (double jeopardy or not) then the evidence should be used. People want justice and if these measures help to provide that then so be it

John Cooper:
I can certainly understand the point of view being expressed but what is equally important is that we have finality in cases. It is very important when people go to trial that they know after their trial if they're found not guilty - and many are found guilty - but if they're found not guilty, that is an end of the matter.

Another important point to make here Manisha is this. It's certainly a worry but if the prosecution - if the police realise that they can have a second bite of the cherry, it does tend to encourage perhaps a slacker investigation at the start. An important thing now is that minds are concentrated. Let's get it right now and let's get it right first time and that's got to be a good thing in our view.

Manisha Tank:
Bernard, UK: This lays the door open for a suspect who the police believe is guilty to be "perpetually tried" for the rest of their life, with one trial following another, even if they are comprehensively cleared every time. Surely this is unreasonable and effectively sets the DPP as a higher authority than the courts?

John Cooper:
Not only is it unreasonable, I tend to agree with that correspondent. It also potentially could be in breach of the Human Rights code that are laid down about people having a fair trial but again knowing when that trial will end. I tend to agree with that correspondent.

But let me emphasise this, we're not against proper evidence and strong evidence being presented to a court, being presented to a jury - and I emphasise a jury, perhaps your other correspondents will touch on that later - and for that jury to decide guilt or innocence. But I emphasise again, how would the correspondents who speak to your programme feel if they could constantly be tried for something having been acquitted. It's sometimes useful, I think, to put yourself in the position of the defendant - heaven forbid that we should be in that position. But I think people should realise there has to be fairness for everyone.

Manisha Tank:
John Haley, England: I thought that there was already the possibility of a retrial where new evidence came to light. Would David Blunkett's example of new DNA evidence being produced not be covered by this?

John Cooper:
Certainly as far as new evidence is concerned, if a person has been acquitted of an exact offence that they're charged with, they cannot be charged with that same offence again. DNA evidence can be used, for instance, to acquit a person who has been convicted to test unsafe judgements and unsafe verdicts. But as far as bringing new evidence and a new case for the same charge, that cannot be done.

Manisha Tank:
Andrew, UK asks: When scrapping the double jeopardy rule, what safeguards will be introduced? Will this rule apply retrospectively only?

John Cooper:
At the moment the Government are considering from now onwards as it were - retrospectively I don't think is being considered - if it was being considered and it is still a moveable feast at the moment, that would increase our concerns because people have gone into trials and have been acquitted and are of the view that that is the end of the matter.

Once again, I emphasise again, let's keep thinking of everyone's point of view here and not everyone that's charged with an offence, it has to be said, is guilty.

Manisha Tank:
Janet Harding, London: Will there be a "statute of limitation" on retrials or could a case against you remain active for the rest of your life?

John Cooper:
Yes there is a statute of limitation as far as civil offences are concerned - be it three years or six years to bring offences, or charges as far as civil matters are concerned, in relation to personal injury. In this matter, I hope again if they are to bring it in there must be some form of limitation - it can't be perpetual. You can't for instance, be tried 20 years ago and suddenly find yourself tried again. That again would be intolerable in a decent, democratic society.

Manisha Tank:
Mohammed Hussain, Birmingham, UK asks: With the prospect of making available a defendant's previous convictions where relevant, what impact would that have on the defendant say in a rape case, for example?

John Cooper:
Let's deal with that now and say that that's not new. A defendant's previous convictions can already be supplied to juries in certain situations - they can be provided where they're relevant. They can also be provided to juries where, for instance, a defendant makes an attack on the prosecution witness. The prosecution can therefore say - well let's hear about the character of the defendant as well. So it's not a matter of juries not being told of previous convictions but I think it's important to mark here that a general approach of previous convictions being placed before a jury is a very dangerous thing indeed. People can be and should be tried on the facts of a particular case. If a jury hears or if we all hear, about a previous conviction, it tends to cloud your mind.

Manisha Tank:
Richard Jarmaine, UK asks: Currently defence lawyers are unlikely to question to reliability of the prosecution in case the defendant's previous convictions will be revealed. If previous convictions will now be revealed anyway, surely the defence will be free to cast every possible aspersion on the prosecution itself?

John Cooper:
Well, the defence, like any barrister or indeed the prosecution always take a very responsible attitude to this. If it is relevant to challenge a prosecution witness in such a way that your previous convictions will be brought in, you'll do it anyway and the fact that your previous convictions can be brought in easier if this government proposal goes through, will not affect the way a lawyer conducts their defence - I'm convinced of that. For instance, I'll give you an analogous situation. When the new law came in about adverse inferences being drawn if you don't give a police interview or adverse inferences being drawn if you don't give evidence - the so-called abolition of the right of silence which it wasn't. It was considered well this will force defendants to give evidence. I can tell you now, Manisha, it doesn't. We still make the same decision if it's appropriate for people not to give evidence. It hasn't made a jot of a difference.

Manisha Tank:
Nathan in Kent, UK asks: Don't you think removing the double jeopardy aspect of the criminal justice Bill will make it impossible for cases with a high media profile to gain a fair impartial retrial? If cases such as the Stephen Lawrence case were retried, surely such a trial could not be impartial?

John Cooper:
I agree that that's a very good point indeed. It's difficult now even for retrials to occur where juries for instance haven't reached verdicts, for a second trial to take place after full publicity. The media have an important role to play in broadcasting and informing the general public. But in doing so in high profile cases it makes retrials very, very difficult indeed. And your correspondent's point in my view is a good point.

Manisha Tank:
Emma, Kent (aged 13) asks: It seems ridiculous. The police try really hard to bring the offenders to justice but the system fails them. Supposedly this White Paper is all about putting the victim first.

John Cooper:
Many would say this White Paper, to a degree, is about getting more convictions - I think certain Ministers have said that - it's a matter of how you look at it.

Let me explain our point of view. I'm a barrister who prosecutes and defends - most barristers prosecute and defend. We've no vested interest in either necessarily making sure everyone gets off. Equally we have no vested interest in making sure more people are convicted. In many respects, this White Paper has a political angle to it. There are no votes as criminals in prison but there are lots of votes if the - how shall I put it - political string can be pulled for the public of saving victims. So in many respects the Government are being a little cynical in putting in measures which encourage people to say they're right for victims - which is right but of course say well, we'll have more convictions - the convicted person doesn't have a vote. There needs to be a balance.

Manisha Tank:
Paul Horton, Coventry, UK: Do you think the new reforms will increase the already overstretched prison population? And how are the new reforms actually going to reduce or tackle crime and the causes of it? I personally think this is a knee-jerk reaction for the Government's failure and will do nothing but erode once again civil liberties that are disappearing at an alarming rate - more than any other democratic nation in the world. We must be the laughing stock of Europe.

John Cooper:
The opinion there that we have is that whilst we have on the one hand the Government saying we are having a prison crisis at the moment - we've not enough prison places and more steps must be taken to keep people out of prison - yet this White paper is designed to put more people into prison. I think the expression you often hear in debate is joined up government - this doesn't seem to be joined up government. I emphasise again, we're all for making sure guilty people get convicted. But some of these so-called reforms are sending out the baby with the bathwater - they're making sure guilty people get convicted and in the process, some innocent people are going to be swept up and that's concerning.

Manisha Tank:
Liz Donnelly, Merseyside, UK: How do you think that the proposed changes will actually affect the careers of those in the legal profession?

John Cooper:
The proposed changes are in many respects personally and professionally wonderful - double jeopardy - we do the case twice. We on the Bar Council are arguing against double jeopardy so I can end on a very refreshing note. We the barristers are arguing to do less work.