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.
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