§ 34. Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord Advocate when he expects to receive the report from the Crown Office on the case of Police Sergeant William Jamieson of Bo'ness.
§ The Lord AdvocateI received the Crown Agent's report on 4th February 1978. The Crown Agent took statements from 40 persons in connection with his inquiry into this case. I have studied the report and the statements. I have found there to be no fresh evidence which would cause me to take a different view of the case.
§ Mr. DalyellArising from the Jamieson case, will the Lord Advocate reflect whether it is time that legislation was brought forward to do something about the stated case procedure?
§ The Lord AdvocateMy hon. Friend is right to put his supplementary question in that context. I think that we need to have an early look at this particular aspect of our procedure. However, my hon. Friend may be aware that the matter 435 was covered by the last report of the Thomson Committee. In fact, it appears that its recommendations do not go along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. FairbairnWithout in any way criticising the Crown Agent, I suggest that it is an unsatisfactory procedure to give the chief prosecuting agent under the Lord Advocate the job of impartially investigating a prosecution in which he succeeded, to see whether he was right in his prosecution. Surely, if any such inquiry should be set on foot, it should be conducted by some impartial person who has no loyalty to either side.
§ The Lord AdvocateI dissociate myself from any suggestion that the Crown Agent did not carry out this examination with complete objectivity. I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will bear this out—that I made no pretence when I asked the Crown Agent to undertake this inquiry that it was other than a departmental inquiry. Unfortunately, I must use the resources available to me and to my Department.