December 6.

George Beattie's appeal was hampered because of confusion about court

procedure. From as early as last March, Beattie's legal advisers were

asking the appeal court staff for guidance as to what evidence could be

produced in this rare appeal on reference.

They asked if they could go beyond the evidence mentioned in the

Secretary of State's letter -- the traditional procedure. They were

given no guidance on this whatsoever. When the appeal opened, Beattie's

lawyers had no real idea of how much they could introduce of the vast

amount of evidence they had.

Lord Hope's staff had clearly not understood the Lord

Justice-General's view, for on the first morning of the appeal he made

it quite clear that evidence other than that mentioned in Ian Lang's

letter could be produced.

However, because of the previous half year of confusion Beattie's team

had naturally concentrated on just the first area of evidence -- and had

come to the conclusion that this was clearly enough to win the case.

Their second grounds of appeal did not reflect all the possible

evidence.

Beattie's case was not helped by a further confusion about procedure.

The defence team had no idea if they would be able to offer any rebuttal

to the Solicitor-General's arguments against Beattie -- which contained

factual errors. Rebuttal is certainly not customary in Scottish appeals:

but this was not an ordinary appeal. In fact Beattie's legal team

remained in the dark on this question until Lord Hope made a remark on

the last day of the hearing. Even then, the scope of such a rebuttal was

unclear.

Clearly, a man should not be kept in jail because court staff cannot

clarify procedure well enough. I am sure Lord Hope would agree with that

premise.

Peter M Hill,

8 Thornsett Road,

London.