§ 45. Mr. Fairbairnasked the Lord Advocate what steps he now proposes to take to exonerate the name of James Griffiths and to bring a prosecution for the fabrication of the evidence which resulted in the wrongful conviction of Patrick Connelly Meehan.
§ The Lord AdvocateJames Griffiths was shot dead shortly after the murder of Mrs. Ross in Ayr in July 1969. Accordingly he was not brought to trial, nor was he convicted of any criminal charge in connection with that case. There is no conviction against him which would require to be set aside to exonerate his name.
On the information presently before me I have no criminal proceedings in mind for fabrication of evidence in connection with the trial of Patrick Connelly Meehan.
§ Mr. FairbairnIn connection with the Lord Advocate's previous reply, is he aware that I am more than happy to apologise when I am wrong, provided that he is willing to resign when he is wrong, which he is?
I now return to Question No. 45. Does the Lord Advocate appreciate that Patrick Meehan was convicted of acting along with James Griffiths and that there is an implication of guilt on a man who is dead? Does he appreciate that that implication is lifted from Meehan by the pardon but that it is not lifted, by implication, from James Griffiths? I shall be obliged if the Lord Advocate will reconsider the matter.
§ The Lord AdvocateA sense of fairness is not indicated by an apology being 1524 equated to resignation. It is not disputed that James Griffiths was in Meehan's company that night. In so far as Meehan's conviction implicated James Griffiths, the pardon granted to Meehan could be held to absolve James Griffiths. It would have been easier to determine these matters if Griffiths had not chosen to shoot it out with the police, killing an innocent bystander in the process.