Lord Advocate regrets end of "World's End" trial
14 Sep 07
Angiolini says there was enough evidence to prosecute and would have appealed if allowed
The Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini has defended the Crown Office's handling of the "World's End" trial and said that if the Crown could have appealed against the judge's decision to withdraw the case from the jury, it would have done.
Ms Angiolini said there was enough evidence to prosecute Angus Sinclair for the murders of Christine Eadie and Helen Scott in 1977, and she said she was disappointed the case had not reached a jury.
The trial at the High Court in Edinburgh ended on Monday after judge Lord Clarke ruled that Sinclair did not have a case to answer, upholding a defence submission that the evidence was insufficient to point to Sinclair as the killer of the girls.
Ms Angiolini outlined the Crown's approach to the prosecution in a statement to the Holyrood parliament yesterday. She said Crown counsel was still of the view there had been sufficient evidence against Sinclair. She also explained that prosecutors had considered Sinclair's responsibility for the murder of four other young women in Glasgow in 1977, but there had been no evidence directly implicating him and the crimes were not sufficiently similar to support a case that the same person had committed all of them. She refuted suggestions that the police were unhappy with the Crown's approach.
Difficult decisions
Answering questions, Ms Angiolini told MSPs that the job of prosecutors would be easier if juries were allowed to be told about an accused person's previous convictions if these related to predatory sexual assaults, but it was for the government and parliament to decide whether such a change should be made, not someone who could be perceived as partisan.
The Lord Advocate pointed out that there would be occasions when persons accused of a crime were acquitted. "The purpose of the criminal justice system is to test, independently, the evidence put forward by the public prosecutor. On occasion, judges and juries will find that they are not satisfied with the evidence available, particularly where the evidence in the case is not straightforward.
"It would, in my opinion, be wrong for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service not to raise prosecutions because they fear an acquittal, and the inevitable criticism which follows. If there is a sufficiency of evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute, then there must be a presumption in favour of prosecution - regardless of the fact that the case will be difficult and there is a possibility of an acquittal. I would not wish to lead an organisation which shirked from the responsibility of taking such difficult decisions.
"There will of course be a thorough review over the next few months of the prosecution of the case and any important lessons we can learn will be taken forward."
Confidence in prosecutors
The Lord Advocate went on to praise Alan Mackay, the prosecutor in the trial. It was impossible, she said, to predict exactly how evidence would come out in a trial, whatever preparation had taken place beforehand. She appointed advocate deputes because she had absolute confidence in their judgment. The decision as to which DNA evidence to lead had been one for Mr Mackay; he had taken a reasond decision and one that properly fell within his discretion.
Advocates depute, she asserted, "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".
Ms Angiolini added: "I would also like to make clear that the Solicitor General and I are of the view that even if the advocate depute had chosen to lead the evidence in relation to the DNA on the ligatures, given the way in which the judge approached the case it is unlikely to have persuaded him to repel the defence submission."
As for the accusation that the Crown had led only 20% of the available evidence, "It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the case to suggest that less evidence than necessary was presented to the court. A significant amount of evidence was agreed either prior to or during the trial, which can happen only if the evidence is listed on the indictment in the first place. Furthermore, some evidence was listed to ensure that any challenges to the evidence from the defence could be met, if required, and to ensure that there was further evidence available to prove the Crown case if any particular piece of evidence did not come out as expected. That is perfectly normal procedure".
Double jeopardy reviewed
In addition to extending the Crown's right of appeal, the outcome of the case has led to calls for the revocation of the double jeopardy rule, which means that someone cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
During First Minister's questions Conservative leader Annabel Goldie repeated her party's call for the scrapping of the rule and called on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to honour a commitment she said he had made to such a move while in opposition.
Mr Salmond said it was important not to have a "knee-jerk reaction" in relation to any particular case. The matter had already been discussed in cabinet and should be approached "in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner".
In England and Wales, the double jeopardy rule can be overridden for certain serious charges such as murder if "new and compelling" evidence emerges.