Britain's Lord Chancellor said yesterday the legal system had been brought into disrepute by allegations of bias and the overturning of the Law Lords' historic judgment against Gen Pinochet.
Lord Irvine of Lairg insisted that new procedures had to be adopted to ensure there was no repeat of the setting aside of the Law Lords' original ruling that the former Chilean dictator was not immune from prosecution.
"It is of course unprecedented. It is in the highest degree unfortunate because it does have a tendency to bring the legal system into disrepute," Lord Irvine told BBC radio. "This was of course litigation where the eyes of the world were, and are, upon us. But what is necessary to do is not cry over spilt milk but to see that procedures are put in place to ensure that this does not happen again."
Lord Irvine's comments follow the decision by five senior Law Lords earlier this month to set aside an earlier Lords judgment that Gen Augusto Pinochet was not immune from extradition and prosecution for crimes against humanity.
They ruled the case would have to be reheard after it emerged that a member of the original panel, Lord Hoffmann, had not declared his links with Amnesty International, a vociferous opponent of Gen Pinochet's military regime
Lord Irvine said that in future when a panel of Law Lords was assembled to hear an appeal the judges should meet to consider whether the presence of any of the judges could give rise to an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Lord Irvine's comments yesterday met with a tepid response from former Master of the Rolls Lord Donaldson, who said the Lord Hoffmann affair did not mean the system required a radical overhaul.
"What happened is unfortunate but I don't see any need to alter the system. All judges know that they have to let the parties in a case know of anything that gives the appearance of bias. That has certainly been the case for as long as I can remeber. Just because the system broke down on this one occasion does not mean the system is wrong."
But Lord Scarman, a retired Law Lord, agreed with Lord Irvine that the judges should meet to examine possible conflicts of interest before hearing a case.