Trials in high-profile terrorism cases should be conducted by a panel of judges and have a better chance of winning public approval if verdicts are delivered by juries, a former judge who sparked a storm by acquitting two men in the Air India bombing has said.

"I would have loved a jury trial to have made the factual findings in that case," Justice Ian Josephson of B C Supreme Court said at a conference, organised jointly by the Federal Court of Canada [Images] and Carleton University, in Ottawa on Monday.

"I think there is better acceptance of a verdict from a jury in the community, whether they convict or acquit. But that was out of my hands," media reports quoted him as saying.

Josephson presided over the case of Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri after the two men, who had initially chosen to put their fates in the hands of a jury, changed their minds and opted instead for trial by a judge sitting alone.

Defendants were acquitted of a range of charges, including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, after Josephson concluded the testimony of some key witnesses were not credible and the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The verdict in March 2005 was greeted with outrage by the families of the bombing victims. The resulting furor helped pave the way for the appointment of a public inquiry under former Supreme Court justice John Major, who is currently reviewing all aspects of the 1985 terrorist attack.