UNTIL recently I had complete trust and every faith in our judicial system. However, as someone who has recently experienced this system -- not as an accused I might add -- my opinion has altered completely.

I confess that my knowledge of the judiciary is only that of a normal law-abiding citizen and that if I was to be pigeon-holed politically I would describe myself as an Anglophile but with an open mind.

Last October my 27-year-old son was stabbed and subsequently died from his injuries. A person was eventually brought before the system and, despite witness and forensic evidence that was believed to be watertight by the prosecution, was acquitted not only of murder but also of manslaughter.

The jury for whatever reason -- as we do not have a right to know -- had found fit to acquit with no right of appeal.

The only recourse a victim, or in this case a victim's family, has is to proceed through the civil courts. To ordinary people unable to obtain legal aid the cost of such an action is prohibitive.

Surely, it is only just that cases of this magnitude be laid before professional people? I am not saying that the outcome in this instance would have been any different, but If a right to appeal goes before a panel of judges, why not the case itself? If the accused has nothing to hide why fear a trial before the judiciary and the judiciary alone. The same should apply to the law on double jeopardy. Why fear it if you have nothing to hide?

I have not been swayed by recent events to realise that the EU is not the be all and end all or the answer to everyone's prayers, but at the same time I am not that blinkered to realise that we should be able to embrace any good that comes from the EU.

If changing the law improves the way the courts are operated and gives the victims equal rights to those so long enjoyed by the accused, what is the problem?

Ashton Jarvis, Stanah Road, Thornton.