THE Lord Advocate has written to a Tory-led Holyrood committee over an “inappropriate” bid to influence prosecution guidelines.
Dorothy Bain KC wrote to Sue Webber MSP, convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee which is currently scrutinising the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill.
The committee stated that the Lord Advocate should make “careful consideration” of the views of young people when revisiting guidelines on offences committed by children.
READ MORE: Aberdeen and Glasgow to become first 'investment zones' in Scotland
However, the Lord Advocate stated that it was a “fundamental principle of Scots constitutional law” that she “takes decisions independently of any other person”.
Bain added that the committee recommendations were against its constitutional principles “to seek to influence the content of prosecution policy, including the Guidelines”.
The Lord Advocate was highly critical in the letter, adding that she was “disappointed” the committee made the recommendation.
In the committee’s Stage 1 report, published on June 13, MSPs recommended that: “When the Lord Advocate’s Guidelines are next revisited, careful consideration is given as to how the views of the child or young person are factored into the Procurator Fiscal’s decision-making process when identifying a) if a prosecution is in the public interest and b) whether a case should be disposed of via the courts or via the Children’s Hearing System.
“In making this recommendation, the Committee is mindful that the process should include the views both of the young person accused of an offence and any young person harmed as a result of that behaviour.”
The committee has 10 MSPs including Webber (pictured above) who are scrutinising the legislation, with SNP MSP Ben Macpherson serving as deputy convener.
SNP MSPs Stephanie Callaghan, Bill Kidd, Ruth Maguire, and Michelle Thompson also sit on the committee, alongside Tory MSP Stephen Kerr, Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy, Ross Greer for the Scottish Greens and Willie Rennie for the LibDems.
In her letter to the committee convener, Bain wrote that the doctrine asserting that the Lord Advocate takes decisions independently pre-dates devolution but is included in the Scotland Act.
READ MORE: Helen Whately struggles as Question Time audience reject Rwanda policy
“This principle is not restricted to independence in prosecutorial decision-making,” Bain wrote.
“It extends to the content of prosecution policy, for which I am responsible.
“It runs counter to this constitutional principle for the Committee – or any other person – to seek to influence the content of prosecution policy, including the Guidelines.
“With respect, it was inappropriate for the Committee to make a recommendation of this nature and I am disappointed that it did so.”
The Lord Advocate added that she hopes her letter “does not detract from the importance of the substantive issues at which the Committee’s recommendation was directed”.
Bain (pictured above) added that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is reviewing the guidelines under her direction, and considering the Crown’s legal obligations, particularly under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), are core to that review.
“This of course includes the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views according to their age and maturity,” Bain added.
“I trust that this is of reassurance to the Committee.”
Bain also said in the letter that the Scottish Government had already set out why it disagreed with the recommendation and that it was inappropriate for the committee to make it in the first instance.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel