The Lord Advocate was wrong to use a speech in the Scottish Parliament to justify the prosecution of the World's End murders, according to one of the three judges who presided over the Lockerbie trial.
Lord Coulsfield also said he supports changing the law to give the prosecution a right of appeal against judicial decisions to abandon trials.
The High Court judge, who retired from the bench five years ago, said he was uncomfortable with the manner in which Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, handled the aftermath of the collapse of the World's End murder trial last week.
The case against serial sex killer Angus Sinclair, who was accused of raping and murdering 17-year-olds Helen Scott and Christine Eadie 30 years ago, was thrown out last Monday after the trial judge Lord Clarke said there was insufficient evidence.
Three days later Ms Angiolini gave a detailed account of the prosecution case and the DNA evidence to MSPs at Holyrood.
She said the fact some prosecution evidence was not led was irrelevant as "given the way in which the judge approached the case it is unlikely to have persuaded him to repel the defence submission".
Lord Coulsfield, one of the judges during the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands six years ago, was asked in a BBC interview yesterday if he was comfortable with the Lord Advocate addressing the parliament.
He said: "Well no, because it's quite obvious I think that unless you really knew what the DNA evidence was, unless you had studied it, you couldn't say whether or not the advocate-depute was right to take the course that he did and you couldn't say whether the evidence would have made any difference." He added that while the World's End trial had caused deep dissatisfaction and frustration across Scotland, he did not believe its outcome warranted scrapping principles such as the ancient double jeopardy rule which prevents a person from being tried for the same crime twice.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, hinted to MSPs on Wednesday he was willing to look at doing away with the principle in certain cases.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said over the weekend he was "sympathetic" to removing the double jeopardy rule in certain circumstances.
However, Lord Coulsfield, a Privy Councillor, said: "The fairness of our legal system and our free society depend on a number of fundamental principles of criminal law: the independence of the courts; the presumption of innocence; proof beyond reasonable doubt; and the finality of court judgments.
"These are pillars of the system. I think one should only tamper with those pillars if there is an overwhelming reason for doing so."
He added: "What it may do is raise the question about whether the Crown should have a right of appeal in some form or another.
"In a very difficult case, and a very important and tragic case like the World's End murders, it is not exactly comfortable for a single judge to make the decision on his own and a procedure which enabled some kind of appeal or reference to be made would be, in my view, a good thing."
Cross-party talks on far-reaching reform of Scotland's legal system are to take place in the wake of the World's End trial.
The changes, including the removal of double jeopardy and giving the Crown the right to appeal, could form part of a criminal justice Bill scheduled for late next year.
Ministers will also consult on allowing an accused person's previous convictions to be revealed to the jury during a trial.
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