Wrong image
We were surprised and very disappointed to see an outdated image of the University of Stirling alongside an article that concentrates on the need for major capital investment in Scottish universities (The Herald, September 13).

The photograph featured misrepresents the current university estate and our rolling programme of investment.

The campus has benefited from approximately £30m worth of investment in the past four years and we plan to invest a further £15m in this financial year.

Like most universities, maintaining our estate is a major financial challenge. However, we believe that ongoing investment in our buildings and facilities is essential to the maintenance of a high-quality student experience, as well as to our competitiveness in the global research environment. The Audit Scotland report backs the case for this continued investment.

Kevin Clarke, University Secretary, University of Stirling.

World's End retrial
If convicted of a crime, should a person have the right to demand another trial? Should defendants be able to keep trying a new defence until they find one that works? Of course not. So why should the rules be any different for the prosecution?

It is a long-established principle that it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent. Angus Sinclair remains sentenced to life in prison whether innocent or guilty of the World's End murders. Despite widespread interest, as far as justice is concerned, any outcome of the trial would have been of little practical significance. No-one would have been any safer had a conviction resulted; no dangerous acquitted killer is roaming the streets because of a failed prosecution.

If any single case can ever be sufficient to overturn centuries of legal protection from the state for accused citizens, this is not the one.

Victims' families often demand justice, but justice is not to be had from emotional appeals. The mental anguish for those accused of a serious crime is intense. Trying someone again and again may eventually provide closure for the families, but to remove the finality of an acquittal for the innocent is an unbearably high price for society to pay.

Geraint Bevan, 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow.

Doubts over the legality of snaring
Alex Hogg of the Scottish Gamekeepers' Association took issue with my colleague Ross Minett over the legal status of snares in Scotland (Snares only catch the targeted species, September 11). However, consideration of European and UK statute and case law creates genuine doubt as to whether snaring, as practised by anyone in Scotland today, can legally continue.

It is illegal under the EU Habitats Directive and UK/Scottish Habitats Regulations deliberately to snare a European Protected Species, such as an otter or wild cat.

European Protected Species, particularly otters, are widespread throughout Scotland.

It is illegal to use a snare to catch any kind of animal if there is a known risk of catching one of these protected animals.

It is illegal to use a non-selective trap without a licence to catch species that are generally protected, but may be controlled under certain circumstances, such as mountain hare, pine marten or polecat.

Snares are non-selective traps and very few licences have been issued for their use.

As a result, without derogations which have no relevance to most of the snaring carried out in this country, it must be almost impossible to use a snare under any circumstances without falling foul of these restrictions. This view was recognised by the Scottish Government in its consultation document on the future of snaring in Scotland.

The only answer is to ban the use of snares.

Libby Anderson, Political Director, Advocates for Animals, 10 Queensferry Street, Edinburgh.

Too early to say smoking ban improved health
I share the unease over the use of a simple percentage statistic to illustrate the decline of admissions to hospital of patients with heart attacks due to the recent anti-smoking legislation (Letters, September 14).

May I make three points? First, the term "heart attack" covers several conditions. If what is meant is myocardial infarction then this should be stated. Secondly, without the raw data, a percentage figure can be misleading. The actual numbers of admissions, before and after a specified time, should be made available.

My last point is that it is far too early to attribute a decline in heart-related hospital admissions to any one factor. Several years are required before the health impact of anti-smoking laws can be properly assessed.

Dr William O Thomson, 7 Silverwells Court, Bothwell.