We need to recognise that much of the media hype about changing the double jeopardy rule is more to do with racism that with the advantages of the change

It was tentative because Sir William Macpherson, chair of the inquiry, is well aware of the long-standing rule in English law that after acquittal, there should be no risk that an innocent person can be hounded again and again for the rest of their life by the threat of repeatedly being charged for the same offence.

However, we could not ignore the situation left at the end of our inquiry. It seemed very possible that at least one of the three men acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence was in fact the murderer

That the killer is still free and at large is very much a result of the collective failure of the Metropolitan Police murder investigation.

We felt we could anticipate the likelihood of the future appearance of fresh evidence so strong that a conviction would be very likely. We felt we could not ignore the gross injustice of the murderer being beyond the law in that event.

Our recommendation recognises the difficulties in changing a long-established right of innocent people under English law. But Home Secretary Jack Straw implemented our recommendation swiftly by referring it to the Law Commission.

Rather to everyone's surprise, the Law Commission has suggested that the law be changed along the lines we recommended. This is now out for consultation.

In effect what is likely to happen is that, in carefully selected cases, and on one occasion only, the High Court may be able to refer cases like this for re-trial. There will also be a right of appeal for the previously acquitted person.

Justified fear

The hidden reason for the attacks on the Stephen Lawrence report as a whole is likely, I fear, to be racism

If the law is changed like this, one of the fears about its implementation is that it will be used mostly against black people. In the light of the institutional racism throughout the Stephen Lawrence murder investigation, this has to be a justified fear.

But one more positive outcome is to see that our recommendation was justified. When our report was published in February 1999 it met an outcry. Our findings were ridiculed in sections of the media, as well as by some senior politicians. Our recommendation on double jeopardy was the major target.

I have found myself puzzling over the reason for the unreasoning dismissal of the whole inquiry on the basis of one or two tentative recommendations.

Most people who read and saw in the media what we heard and saw, recognise that two serious injustices were done to Stephen's parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence.

The appalling murder of their son was one. The collective failure of the police to investigate the murder professionally was the other. Most people know that both injustices are connected to the fact that the family is black.

Racism behind attacks on report

The hidden reason for the attacks on the report as a whole is likely, I fear, to be racism.

Mr and Mrs Lawrence seem to me to have out a handle on the lid that covers a nasty, deep-rooted racism.

What our inquiry did was to lift that lid. Now the whole of Britain and the rest of the world are able to look straight into the pot in which racism bubbles.

No one can say that their institution is free from institutional racism. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jack Straw have accepted that. So we now have leadership from the top acknowledging that it is there, and that we must all get on with addressing it.

We need to recognise that much of the media hype about reforming the double jeopardy rule is more to do with racism that with the advantages of the change.