DOUBLE jeopardy - the prosecution of a person twice for the same offence - has recently been in the news, and been discussed by lawyers and politicians. This renewed interest in the subject has come about because of high-profile murder cases, such as the Lawrence saga, where the accused have been acquitted, but where the integrity of the verdict could be challenged in the light of further evidence.

Political and judicial opinion now seems close to taking the view that after a case has been heard and the defendant found not guilty, and further relevant evidence comes to light, the defendant should be tried again for the same offence, thereby facing double jeopardy.

In recent years there have been a number of cases where defendants tried for murder and acts of terrorism were found guilty and jailed for life, but were prematurely released and awarded compensation. This came about as a result of persistent public and media attention causing the case to be re-considered by the judiciary, who found the conviction to have been "unsafe".

In the circumstances, it would seem to be reasonable to bring in legislation to plug the double jeopardy loophole, which can favour the wrongdoer.

The usual reasons for a judicial turnaround are because evidence has been tampered with; the legal requirements for dealing with the investigation have not been complied with, or an unsubstantiated confession by the accused has been used as the basis for the prosecution of the case.

I'm all in favour of criminals getting their just deserts, but not by over-zealous police - under pressure to get a conviction - "fitting-up" suspects, or the need to satisfy legal or political exped-iencies. We need only consider the cases of Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, Ian Hay Gordon and (dependent on a DNA test result) James Hanratty, to realise that those methods are likely to result in unsafe, if not unjust convictions.

Coincidentally, the subject of double jeopardy has, today, some historical significance for the people of York, because on March 27, 1634, John Bartondale, a citizen of York, was found guilty of a crime - the nature of which I have been unable to ascertain - and was condemned to death, hanged and buried. But he survived to be tried again. However, the good people of York saw fit to pardon him on the grounds that he should not face double jeopardy by being executed for the same crime twice.

BIG Brother's cast-out celebrities and the ubiquitous Beckhams now face strong competition for tabloid space from the "just look at us" quintet of beautiful young people, who have been "plucked from obscurity" - where I wish they'd stayed - to become Britain's latest pop star "band", Hear'Say. I think of bands as players of musical instruments. But not this lot, they're a group of precoc-ious, self-indulgent wannabes, who've been "manufactured" to please today's gullible record-buying youngsters.

Oh for the return of the days when we had singers such as Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby, Nelson Eddy, Peggy Lee and Sarah Vaughan, and close harmony groups such as The Andrew Sisters, The Platters and The Ink Spots, who always looked, dressed and sounded right, and sang without the distracting and suggestive cavorting we see today.

APPARENTLY some people are ashamed to let their neighbours know they shop at Tesco. A national newspaper reports that Tesco is piloting a scheme in Norfolk under which the goods of snobbish customers - afflicted with "supermarket shame" - are delivered by unmarked Range Rovers, rather than by huge white vans. As a not so snobby customer of Tesco, who finds it easier to shop online rather than dodge misguided trolleys in crowded shopping aisles, I don't care what type of vehicle they use, provided I get the goods I ordered, in sound condition and on time - which I nearly always do.