§ Mr. Home RobertsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what factors led to the delay by the procurator fiscal after court proceedings were initiated against Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd.; and what assessment he has made as to whether the procurator fiscal was in possession of all relevant information before that date; [20019]
(2) what factors governed the length of the interval between the completion of police scientific evidence of material seized from Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. and the service of an indictment on Mr. Gilbert Mackie; [20228]
(3) what is the cost to public funds of the police investigation, storage charges and jury trial arising from allegations concerning Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement; [20020]
57W(4) what consideration was given to evidence provided by Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. about the ownership of material before it was seized by the police in 1991; [20034]
(5) what factors governed the length of the interval between the procurator fiscal receiving the police report on Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. and his decision to proceed with a prosecution. [20230]
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI am advised by the Lord Advocate that the procurator fiscal at Haddington received a report in this case on 20 May 1993. A decision was taken to precognosce the case prior to placing the accused on petition. This was a complex case involving numerous witnesses. During the course of precognition, it became apparent that further forensic examination, in addition to that already conducted by the police, would be required. This examination was carried out at the university of Edinburgh.
The investigation involved considering in detail evidence about ownership of the property in question, including documentary evidence produced to the police on the accused's behalf.
Once the case had been precognosced, it was submitted for Crown counsel's instructions. Crown counsel considered there to be sufficient evidence and instructed that proceedings should be taken on indictment. The accused, Gilbert Mackie, was placed on petition on 20 September 1994. The case was initially indicted for a sitting of the sheriff court on 15 March 1995, but was adjourned on the motion of the accused. The case was re-indicted for trial on 19 September 1995 but was adjourned on this occasion because the Crown had not received a list of defence witnesses. This list was provided in November 1995 and the case was re-indicted for trial on 12 February 1996.
The other information sought about the cost to public funds of the case is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps were taken to ensure that materials taken from Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. On and after 12 April 1991 were stored in a satisfactory and secure environment; [20033]
(2) if he will make a statement on the decision taken by the police to make arrangements with companies which had claimed to be the legal owners of material seized from Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. in 1991, to remove and store that material; [20035]
(3) if he will make a statement on the change in the condition of timber and other materials stored on behalf of the police pending court proceedings against Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd.; and if it is in a satisfactory condition for (a) production at a criminal trial and (b) further use by its rightful owner; [20018]
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI am advised by the Lord Advocate that storage of the material taken from Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. pursuant to the police inquiry was arranged with a haulage contractor. The equipment has been stored out of doors since 1991. The storage arrangements were as satisfactory as circumstances would allow, having regard to the nature of58W the equipment and the fact that scaffolding equipment is exposed to weather and adverse elements throughout its normal usage.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the length of the interval between notification by the police that certain items would be returned to Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. and the actual delivery; [20017]
(2) if (a) the Crown Office and (b) the police have a full list of material taken by the police from Lothian Scaffolding Services Ltd. on and after 12 April 1991; and if he will make a statement. [20032]
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI am advised by the Lord Advocate that the Crown Office has a list of material seized by the police following identification of the material by others as being their property. This material has not been returned because ownership is disputed. If this dispute cannot be resolved, civil court proceedings may be required. Further inquiries are being made as to whether the police seized other material which was not the subject of charges. This additional information is not available and I will reply further as soon as possible.