Like everyone, I become incensed when I hear about criminals being released from court where judge, police, prosecution and defence know they are guilty.

It is perhaps even worse when, in spite of their known guilt, they cannot even be brought to court.

It has become a convention to knock the Crown Prosecution Service for failing to prepare cases properly and it may be perfectly proper to blame its inefficiency.

Talk to magistrates and they can all tell horror stories about the sheer bungling ineptitude of the CPS on occasions.

But the frightening state of our legal system and its ineffectiveness in dealing with modern, organised crime has now been revealed.

The impeccable source is none other than Sir David Phillips, Chief Constable of Kent and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

As one of Britain's most senior police officers, his recommendations for change about what evidence can and cannot be used in court must be taken seriously. Common sense dictates there must be a positive response.

Like most of us, he feels enormous frustration. But to come out and say publicly that many people are just laughing at the law and the system is unable to cope is unprecedented in its openness.

Senior police officers are not usually so frank. He talks of a creaking, 19th Century approach to justice which is fine dealing with Miss Marple-style village murders or poison pen letters but does not work against ruthless international criminals.

He is absolutely right to be angry that much hard evidence is inadmissible in British courts whereas in other countries, such as France, it can be considered.

For instance, evidence such as previous convictions, patterns of crime and the lifestyle of the accused is difficult to present to a jury here.

Criminals receive far too much protection from the law and victims far too little. Which is why I am convinced Sir David is right not to pull any punches.

In a report called Organised Crime he has submitted to Home Secretary David Blunkett, he is calling for nothing less than a complete overhaul of the British legal system to give police a real chance to fight and beat organised crime.

But there is more.

He wants evidence of wealth for which defendants cannot account to be admissible in court. Even more controversially, he is proposing an offence of criminal association, which would allow police to charge someone living with or knowing criminals if they profited from the crimes.

And this would include husbands and wives of criminals who benefited from crimes and failed to tell the police.

It all makes good sense. It is patently unjust that so many racketeers and mobsters can be given inadequate jail sentences only to be released to enjoy luxurious lifestyles carefully and "legally" arranged through families or friends.

It is time to say "stop it" and Sir David is attempting to do precisely that.