HM ADVOCATE v SINCLAIR Dear Lord Justice General Thank you for your letter of 26 September.
You express concern that I have publicly asserted that the decision of the trial judge in this case was wrong and that the independence of the judiciary as the final arbiter of legal issues is thereby put at risk.
You recognise, however, that it might be appropriate for me publicly to support the Advocate Depute without public criticism of the judge and you point out that respect for what was treated as being a final decision of the High Court of Justiciary might have been expressly afforded.
I would wish to make it clear that in my statement to the Parliament, to which I am accountable, I endeavoured to stress the independence of the judiciary and the need to respect that.
I said explicitly that "as the law stands the decision of the judge is final and we all have to respect that".
I do not think I could have gone further expressly to afford greater respect for the final decision of the trial judge in the circumstances.
I do, of course, fully understand the importance of independence of functions in the criminal justice system.
My own independence is already recognised in statute, in the Scotland Act itself, which provides that any decision taken by me in my capacity as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland shall continue to be taken by me independently of any other person.
My independence does not and can not make my decisions immune from comment or criticism. In a democracy such as ours, where public institutions are subject to greater scrutiny and accountability, the Lord Advocate must be able to explain her position in public where that is necessary.
Law Officers and prosecutors are from time to time criticised and we must be free to respond publicly to that criticism in appropriate circumstances.
In the particular circumstances of this case I considered it necessary to respond to the criticism of the Crown's handling of the case which followed on the trial judge's decision. This criticism extended to adverse comment regarding the Crown's approach to the case, why evidence was not led and to the strength of evidence in other potentially related cases. There was an unprecedented interest in the actions of the Advocate Depute, there were calls for an inquiry and for a statement be made to the Parliament on the Crown's handling of the case.
It was suggested that the case had damaged public confidence in the criminal justice system. I considered that it was important for me to allay public concerns as quickly as possible and that this should be done by a full statement to the Parliament.
I chose my words to the Parliament with great care. I explained the background to and the basis of the Crown's decision making in the case and sought to address the concerns which I have set out above. In doing this I stressed the independence of the judiciary and the need to respect that.
I repeated this during questions following the statement. Indeed, in almost six years as a Law Officer I have avoided any public criticism of judicial decisions.
My comments were about the Crown's decision making, and not anyone else's.
I am happy to meet you to discuss the matter further if you would find this of assistance.
Elish Angiolini QC Lord Advocate
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article