A new regime to further relax the double jeopardy rule as proposed by the Opposition would be open to abuse, according to Attorney General Kim Wilson.The One Bermuda Alliance is calling for Bermuda to follow the UK’s lead in relaxing the double jeopardy rule which prevents someone being tried more than once for the same crime.Its proposals, if adopted, could lead to the killers of Rebecca Middleton being brought to justice, in much the same way the killers of UK teenager, Stephen Lawrence, were brought to justice last month.Under changes to the Court of Appeal Act, 1964, Bermuda has already relaxed the rule for murder and premeditated murder cases, but it cannot be applied retroactively.That change, in 2010, meant that the Director of Public Prosecution could appeal to the Court of Appeal where “new and compelling” evidence comes to light following a trial in which the accused has been acquitted, discharged or convicted of a lesser offence than the offence for which he was tried.“This amendment changed the double jeopardy rule in relation to premeditated murder and murder without the need for constitutional change,” said Ms Wilson.The OBA’s proposals would mean relaxing the rule for a broader range of crimes and would apply retroactively.“The OBA have suggested a regime be adopted comparable to the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003”, said Ms Wilson.“Part 10 of the UK Act is extremely wide in its application, and is in fact retroactive; therefore an equivalent amendment to local law would leave the provisions open to abuse, scrutiny and constitutional challenge. In keeping with our Constitution, section 17B of the Court of Appeal Act is not retroactive.”Ms Wilson said the UK Act’s definition of “new” “which states that evidence is new if it was not adduced (determined) in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted” was also worrying.“It is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person; and whether it is likely that the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by a police officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition,” she said.“This in practice would include evidence that was available to the prosecution, but not relied upon during the trial due to prosecutorial discretion.”