"The lord advocate has defended his actions in the case of a policewoman wrongly accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene.
Colin Boyd said he was right to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury. She was acquitted in 1999.
But Mr Boyd said he was also right not to take action against experts involved in the case.
He insisted there was insufficient proof that they lied in court. "
As Ms Margo MacDonald MSP has pointed out, this leaves open the question as to why. If the decison to prosecute Ms McKie was right (even if she was subsequently acquitted), and if the decision not to prosecute the fingerprint experts was justified on grounds of insufficient proof, then why - oh why - did the Scottish Executive provide £750,000 to Ms McKie by way of compensation in an out of court settlement?
No comments:
Post a Comment