HC Deb 11 June 1980 vol 986 cc552-4
35. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if, in view of the admitted mistake of identity by the Procurator Fiscal resulting in Mr. Ron O'Byrne, of Livingston, being sentenced to a fine of £45 after having past offences committed by another Mr. R. O'Byrne attributed to him, he will introduce legislation to obviate the necessity for a victim of such admitted error to bear the expense of an appeal, and to deal more satisfactorily with cases where an unchallenged conviction for a minor traffic offence is compounded by error in relation to alleged previous convictions.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I do not consider that legislation would be appropriate in this case. For the record, the conviction which was libelled against Mr. O'Byrne related to another person of a quite different name who was also included in the same report by the police to the procurator fiscal. The error is very unlikely to recur. The conviction and sentence were set aside on 10 June with no expense falling on Mr. O'Byrne.

Mr. Dalyell

I thank the Lord Avocate for his courtesy in telephoning me at 11 o'clock at night. Nevertheless, is it not of consequence that people who are the victims of admitted error should have to go to the expense of an appeal?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I am glad to say that Mr. O'Byrne did not have to go to the expense of an appeal. As a matter of general principle, persons who are convicted in error or as a result of a wrong fact should not be put to any expense. That is a principle to which I would certainly adhere in all cases.

Mr. Harry Ewing

May I thank the Solicitor-General for not telephoning me at 11 o'clock at night? Will he examine the appropriate clause in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill under which people pleading guilty by letter will be regarded as having admitted previous offences listed, in case there is something in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that we can deal with on Report?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I agree that that is relevant to a discussion that we had elsewhere this week. The transposition of the sentences of persons on the same report, not a confusion by a computer, was involved in this case. To ensure that I have made no mistake I shall telephone the hon. Gentleman each hour tonight.