Chamber
Plenary, 13 Sep 2007
13 Sep 2007 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Angus Sinclair Case
The Lord Advocate:
Watch on SPTV
Of course, although it can only pale in comparison to the pain that the families of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie must be feeling, no one could feel anything but the most extreme pain at the conclusion of the case—certainly not the prosecutor who devoted 18 months of his life to the conduct of the case.
On the question of the law officers' involvement in the case, as area procurator fiscal, Frank Mulholland supervised the preparation and investigation of the case before he was appointed as Solicitor General for Scotland. Since then, because of his previous role, he has continued to provide support to the advocate depute in the case up until and, indeed, during the trial.
On the question whether the Crown counsel consulted a law officer on the decision not to lead the DNA evidence, there was no such consultation nor, as I said in my statement, would I expect there to be. I appoint advocate deputes because I have absolute confidence in their judgment. They must have the independence to make such decisions except in very restricted and limited circumstances. The reason for that is not preciousness but because the only person who can determine what evidence should be led once a trial has commenced is the person who presents the case in court. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and other Crown counsel will not have seen the responses of jurors to particular aspects of evidence or be able to tell the nuances of how the evidence has emerged during the course of the case. Nor will they be able to tell whether the evidence has come out as anticipated, because evidence on paper is often very different from the evidence that emerges during a trial. The only person who has a grip on what the sensitivity is of the evidence that should be presented is the advocate depute. For that reason, only the most eminent and able lawyers are appointed as Crown counsel.
On the question of a right of appeal, it is not appropriate that I, as the public prosecutor, should set the goalposts for where the evidence should be led. That is a matter for the Executive and for the Parliament. However, I have expressed my concern about the absence of such a right of appeal for the prosecutor in Scotland. Indeed, I raised the matter with the Minister for Justice some weeks ago, but I did not do so in the context of any particular case. Hard cases make bad law, so there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to a particular case. However, as the public prosecutor, I have raised that matter in another context.
On the question of the lessons to be learned, I am of course happy to return to the Parliament and to the Justice Committee to explain what lessons have been learned as a result of the review of the case.
On the question of the law officers' involvement in the case, as area procurator fiscal, Frank Mulholland supervised the preparation and investigation of the case before he was appointed as Solicitor General for Scotland. Since then, because of his previous role, he has continued to provide support to the advocate depute in the case up until and, indeed, during the trial.
On the question whether the Crown counsel consulted a law officer on the decision not to lead the DNA evidence, there was no such consultation nor, as I said in my statement, would I expect there to be. I appoint advocate deputes because I have absolute confidence in their judgment. They must have the independence to make such decisions except in very restricted and limited circumstances. The reason for that is not preciousness but because the only person who can determine what evidence should be led once a trial has commenced is the person who presents the case in court. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and other Crown counsel will not have seen the responses of jurors to particular aspects of evidence or be able to tell the nuances of how the evidence has emerged during the course of the case. Nor will they be able to tell whether the evidence has come out as anticipated, because evidence on paper is often very different from the evidence that emerges during a trial. The only person who has a grip on what the sensitivity is of the evidence that should be presented is the advocate depute. For that reason, only the most eminent and able lawyers are appointed as Crown counsel.
On the question of a right of appeal, it is not appropriate that I, as the public prosecutor, should set the goalposts for where the evidence should be led. That is a matter for the Executive and for the Parliament. However, I have expressed my concern about the absence of such a right of appeal for the prosecutor in Scotland. Indeed, I raised the matter with the Minister for Justice some weeks ago, but I did not do so in the context of any particular case. Hard cases make bad law, so there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to a particular case. However, as the public prosecutor, I have raised that matter in another context.
On the question of the lessons to be learned, I am of course happy to return to the Parliament and to the Justice Committee to explain what lessons have been learned as a result of the review of the case.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a statement by Elish Angiolini on the case of Angus Sinclair. The Lord Advocate will take questions at the end of her statement ...
The Lord Advocate (Elish Angiolini):
Presiding Officer, I am grateful to you for allowing me to address Parliament on this important issue. Some of the details of what I have to say are necessar...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
As I intimated earlier, the Lord Advocate will take questions on issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow until around 15:55 for questions...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the Lord Advocate for coming to the chamber. She will be aware of the widespread concern throughout Scotland that these vile crimes have gone unpunis...
The Lord Advocate:
Of course, although it can only pale in comparison to the pain that the families of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie must be feeling, no one could feel anythi...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Continuing on the issue of a right of appeal, I recognise that the Lord Advocate does not currently have that right, although such a right is available in ot...
The Lord Advocate:
On such a hypothetical situation, it is difficult to speculate. However, given the Crown's submissions at the conclusion of the Crown's case and given what I...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
Lab
I echo Margaret Curran's comments about the families of the victims. They have behaved in an impeccable and constructive manner following the trial and they ...
The Lord Advocate:
I am surprised at Mr Martin's comments. Clearly, the information that I have been given has been provided by the lawyers who were in court. I expect that I h...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
Both in the press and by other means this week, I have asked the Lord Advocate to answer three questions. First, was there a full appreciation of the difficu...
The Lord Advocate:
As I have mentioned, I have raised the issue of the appeal with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Clearly, it is for the Executive, collectively, not for me...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
The anguish of the victims' families can barely be imagined. Will the Lord Advocate therefore agree with me that this case highlights the need for greater op...
The Lord Advocate:
As I said in my statement, the decision about what takes place during the course of the trial must be with the prosecutor. There must be trust in the prosecu...
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I thank the Lord Advocate for making such a full statement this afternoon. It is only right, given the notoriety not only of the case but of the judgment, th...
The Lord Advocate:
I agree entirely with the sentiments that the member expresses about the extent of this tragedy for the families and the dignity that they have shown through...
Ian McKee (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the Lord Advocate for her full and helpful explanation of what is going on. It has reinforced my confidence in the ability and integrity of the prose...
The Lord Advocate:
It is difficult to be critical of what took place some 20 years ago. Some of the advances in forensic science and knowledge have been utterly unexpected deve...
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab):
Lab
Does the Lord Advocate acknowledge that local people feel a deep sense of injustice about this case, which has been raised with me from time to time in the e...
The Lord Advocate:
The fact that witnesses were willing to come from all parts of the world to give evidence in this case and to assist in the investigation is a testament to t...
Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Is the Lord Advocate confident that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has the capacity to deal with major cases, bearing in mind that, as she po...
The Lord Advocate:
Over the past five years, there has been a sizeable increase in the number of prosecutors and the cohort of Crown counsel has increased from 18 to 25, with e...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
I thank the Lord Advocate for her detailed and clear statement. Lord Clarke in his opinion stated:"There was no forensic evidence linking the accused with ac...
The Lord Advocate:
I will answer the second question first. In the prosecution service, procurators fiscal investigate crime and prosecute in the sheriff and district court. Wi...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
Does the Lord Advocate share my view that a case can be made for allowing juries sight of analogous previous convictions when defendants have a history of pr...
The Lord Advocate:
In Scotland, evidence of a previous conviction can be admitted in the course of a trial only very rarely and in exceptional circumstances. That is not the ca...