War of words between judge and Lord Advocate

Lord Hamilton attacks Elish Angiolini for "inappropriate" statement to parliament

News, 28 September 2007

Scotland’s chief prosecutor and the head of judges have entered into a war of words over the collapse of the World’s End murder trial and the independence of the judiciary.

Lord Hamilton, the lord justice general, has accused the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini of undermining the principles of democracy and the rule of law. By making public statements that could be seen to criticise judges’ decisions.

In an open letter to Ms Angiolini, Lord Hamilton said the Lord Advocate’s statement to parliament following the collapse of the World’s End trial was disrespectful to the trial judge Lord Clarke. His letter stated that public criticism in a political forum of controversial decisions, particularly relating to sensitive cases, was inappropriate.

Lord Clarke dismissed the case against convicted murder and rapist Angus Sinclair earlier this month, ruling that there was no enough evidence for a jury to reach a verdict.

Sinclair had denied raping and killing the two 17-year-olds Helen Scott and Christine Eadie 30 years ago and dumping their bodies on an East Lothian beach.

In a public letter to Lord Hamilton, the Lord Advocate states: “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.”

The Lord Advocate’s letter goes on to say that she fully understands the independence of functions in the criminal justice system and that her own independence is already recognised in statute.

The letter goes on: “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 parliament.”