THE dilatoriness of the Crown Office is not confined to fatal accident inquiries, or FAIs ("Yet more evidence of intolerable delays in FAIs", The Herald, July 26).
Criminal cases, too, are routinely beset with adjournments, delays and long periods of apparently inexplicable inactivity. Cases often do not come to trial until nine months or more after the offence, and delays of 18 months or more are not unheard of.
All of this exacerbates the stress on victims and witnesses, who can be summoned to court repeatedly, sometimes at as little as one day's notice and often at considerable inconvenience and financial cost to themselves. Once at court, they are liable to be left waiting, unenlightened, for up to six hours, only to be sent away to come back another day.
By the time witnesses eventually give their evidence in court, not only is their recollection of events - and consequently the quality of their evidence - impaired by the passage of time, but they may well be feeling alienated and unco-operative towards the whole proceedings.
Many, traumatised by their experience, vow never again to come forward as a witness. In domestic cases, where the offence may have been relatively minor and the parties are eager to be reconciled, compelling a partner or other family member to relive the incident in court many months later can be devastating, particularly where young children are involved.
The suggestion that FAIs might run alongside criminal proceedings, as in England, is worth considering. But while inordinate delays to both criminal proceedings and FAIs have common root in the desultory practices of the Crown Office, improvement here is unlikely. I suggest that the Crown Office needs to reappraise its obligation to deliver justice for Scotland's citizens promptly, efficiently and equitably, rather than disempowering them in a fog of impenetrable bureaucracy.
The oft-quoted aphorism reminds us that "not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done". All too often, I fear justice must also be seen to be believed.
Iain Stuart,
34 Oakbank Crescent,
Perth.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article