A SCOTTISH peer has suggested that the country’s legal system may need a rethink in the wake of questions about the impartiality of the role of the Lord Advocate.
Liberal Democrat grandee Sir Ming Campbell said Scotland should consider giving greater authority to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), and appointing a role similar to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in England and Wales to lead it.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe
It comes after concerns were raised over the dual role held by the current Lord Advocate James Wolffe, who is both a Scottish Government minister and head of the COPFS.
Although questions have been raised in the past under previous Lord Advocates, the issue was drawn into sharp focus over the involvement of Mr Wolffe in the handling of the Scottish Government’s case against former First Minister Alex Salmond.
Sir Ming, who has been a QC for more than half a century, suggested that Scotland should look at adopting a DPP-style role, which was previously held by Labour leader Keir Starmer,as a means of creating additional separation between the government and the prosecution service.
READ MORE: New Government legal files appear to debunk Alex Salmond 'conspiracy theory'
He told The Herald on Sunday: “We have always prided ourselves on the Scottish legal system, but perhaps it is time to borrow something from south of the border.
“The Attorney General in England is a member of the government and has dual responsibilities as a result, but in addition to that there is the office of the DPP which means there is further distancing between the Advocate General and prosecuting decisions, although the Advocate General continues to have ultimate responsibility.
“We would do well to look at that, and see whether or not similar arrangements would be applicable in Scotland.”
Sir Menzies 'Ming' Campbell
Asked about why he thought the impartiality of the role had come under such scrutiny now, the Liberal Democrat grandee said: ”I was called to the bar in 1968, I have known every Lord Advocate since 1968 and I am more than confident that all of them have understood the dual responsibility that the office for the lord advocate creates, and have been at pains to ensure that the impartiality was beyond challenge.”
He said it was imperative that both outwardly, as well as internally within government and the prosecution service, that impartiality was made clear by the Lord Advocate both now and in the future.
READ MORE: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC says he was out the loop on Salmond evidence censorship
His comments come after a survey by Scottish Legal News published on Friday, suggested that the majority of Scotland’s legal profession thought there should be a separation of the roles held by the Lord Advocate entirely.
The poll of 350 legal professionals found that 81.4 per cent believed that the two roles should be split and held by separate people, while 12% said it should remain the same.
The remaining 6.6% were in favour of keeping the dual role but limiting it.
In feedback provided by respondents to Scottish Legal News, one person said of James Wolffe QC: "The present holder of the office is an outstanding individual but that is no argument for preserving an office that objectively speaking involves a clear potential conflict of interest. If the post of Lord Advocate were created now, of new, it would be at risk of immediately being struck down by judicial review.”
Another stressed the importance of perception, saying: “The separation of the roles would not only increase public confidence in the apolitical nature of the post but also allow for more targeted parliamentary scrutiny if required."
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon denies leaning on Crown Office over censored Alex Salmond evidence
Another legal professional added: "While I’m sure Mr Wolffe has conducted himself properly and with integrity throughout this episode, this seems to me like one of the situations where it is not enough that the right thing is done, but the right thing also needs to be seen to be done."
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel