Prosecutions on Indictment (Hansard, 17 November 1982)

§ 33. Mr. Dewar
asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether, in view of the final disposal of the 275 Glasgow rape case, he will now make a statement about the organisation of the Crown Office and the procedures in his Department for dealing with prosecutions on indictment.

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
There have been two recent changes to existing procedures. First, in all cases where murder or rape was the original charge on petition and where it is later thought that a lesser charge or no charge might be appropriate, there must be a reference to my noble and learned Friend, who takes the final decision, as the House has already been advised. Secondly, procurators fiscal have been instructed that they should, in general, inform persons who have alleged that they have been the victims of crimes and who have been precognosced if it is eventually decided not to proceed with the charge.

§ Mr. Dewar
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern about the way in which his Department has been operating? This is based not only on the failure to prosecute in the Glasgow rape case but on many recent instances when multiple prosecutions for murder have been mounted when there has not appeared to be any reasonable prospect of even going to the jury with a murder charge? This is bad for the administration of justice and grossly unfair to the accused. Will he institute a detailed and careful consideration of the procedures within his Department and thereafter make a statement to the House?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
The case to which the hon. Gentleman has carefully referred is still under appeal. Therefore, I shall make no specific reference to it. I understand that the criticism of the Crown Office in recent months has been that the discretion not to prosecute has been used too widely. The hon. Gentleman now seems to be suggesting that we are not exercising that discretion sufficiently. Clearly a balance must be established. If he wishes to talk to me about a particular case at an appropriate stage, I shall be happy to make myself available.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now tell us whether the resignation forced upon his predecessor over the Glasgow rape case was a recognition of his failure to handle the matter properly, or was he made the scapegoat for the mistakes of others?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
I think that I am the least appropriate person to answer that question.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
My hon. and learned Friend has reaffirmed that the right to prosecute or not to prosecute 276 will be ensured by exercising the safeguard of referring such matters to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Does he agree that if someone is charged with murder or rape and the advocate depute who is prosecuting is unable to take a decision whether to accept a plea there is a vast injustice to those involved in the case and an enormous waste of public funds as a result?

§ The Solicitor-General for Scotland
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, there is a discretion to be exercised. The advocate depute who is conducting the trial often has to take difficult decisions during the course of the trial. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already advised the House that in serious cases involving murder or rape, decisions to drop or reduce the charges must be referred to him.