The Dean of Faculty cautioned against “kneejerk responses” to the abolishment of the ‘not proved’ verdict and the division of the Lord Advocate’s role.
Roddy Dunlop, QCThe remarks were made asDorothy Bain, QCAs Lord Advocate, he was sworn in. Ms. Bain is now the Lord Advocate.James Wolffe, QCDuring whose tenure, politicians, including theSNP, who is committed to consulting on the division of the role.
He said to Holyrood Magazine, “A lot behind this is being driven through recent travails.
“Although there have been instances of late where problems have occurred, it is important to remember that the office of the Lord Advocate has been around for hundreds of years and has always operated in a sensible and satisfactory manner.
“The fact that there have been some difficult cases in recent years, take a look at them, but don’t make changes for the sake of change.”
He said nothing about the “not proven” verdict. I don’t care if the arguments for attacking the verdict that is not proven are valid. I’m not sure they are.
Professor James ChalmersOfGlasgow UniversityHe previously tweeted about opposition to the “not proven” verdict being called “knee-jerk”. He stated: “Just seen the possibility that the not proved verdict would be abolished and described it as ‘kneejerk’ given that there have been arguments against its abolition from at least 1846 that’s one very slowly knee.”
The Writing of theEdinburgh ReviewIn 1846Lord CockburnThe verdict was described as “a confusion of legal duty and private suspicion”.
