FRANCIS AULD, the man tried for the murder of 19-year-old Hamilton
student Amanda Duffy -- a charge found not proven by a jury -- has
decided not to defend a #50,000 civil action brought against him by her
parents.
Mr Peter Anderson, the Edinburgh lawyer acting for the Duffys, said
yesterday: ''I am sure they will regard this as the equivalent of an
admission of responsibility on Mr Auld's part, although no doubt he will
see it differently.''
But last night, speaking at their home in Hamilton, the Duffys seemed
taken aback by the news and reluctant to speculate about its
implication. Clearly upset, Mrs Kate Duffy said she and her husband had
not had an opportunity to discuss Mr Auld's decision with their lawyer
but added that she was ''gutted''.
Mr Auld's decision was announced yesterday in a statement issued by
Brodies, the Edinburgh solicitors acting on his behalf.
In the statement Mr Auld, who is now understood to be living in
England, maintained his innocence.
He said: ''I was tried for a crime I did not commit and I was fairly
acquitted by a jury of 15 people. My family and I have been through
enough and I have no wish to become involve in a personal matter with
anyone.''
Brodies said: ''Mr Francis Auld has advised us that it is not his
intention to become involved in the civil action which Mr and Mrs Duffy
have raised against him.
''In accordance with those instructions we are taking no further steps
in the proceedings. It will now be for Mr and Mrs Duffy to decide what
further action they intend to take.''
Mr Duffy said last night he and his wife intended to go away for a few
days on business. He said the couple had not had an opportunity to talk
to their solicitor during the day and added that he was reluctant to
make any detailed comments until they had done so.
He said: ''Because of the legal implications I'm not prepared to say
anything and get it wrong. I don't want to stick my neck out until I've
spoken to our solicitor.''
Mrs Duffy said: ''I'm gutted. It has already cost a lot of money.
There's nothing else I can say until I've spoken to the solicitor.''
Earlier the couple's daughter, Angela, said as far as she understood a
decision not to contest the case was ''an admission of guilt on Mr
Auld's part''. She said her parents had wanted to go to court.
Mr Anderson said in Edinburgh that Kate and Joe Duffy would now need
time to consider what their next steps would be.
If they wish they can go to the Court of Session to ask a judge to
grant a decree for #50,000 against Mr Auld in his absence then take
steps to enforce it.
But the Duffys have made it clear all along that they are not seeking
cash, but rather redress for what they see as the injustice of Mr Auld's
acquittal and a judicial declaration that he was responsible for their
daughter's death.
Following a court decree they could arrest any bank accounts Mr Auld
has in Scotland and get an inhibition against any Scottish property he
owns, but this is likely to be an academic issue.
Lawyers who spoke to The Herald yesterday were not surprised by Mr
Auld's decision not to contest the case. Most said that was exactly the
advice they would have given had they been acting for him.
The advantages of defending the action would have been that if he had
won he could have presented the case as a further clearing of his
reputation. It would also have been a way of protecting #50,000,
assuming he had that sort of sum to protect.
By not defending he has denied the Duffys the opportunity of another
public airing of the allegations against him which a highly publicised
court hearing would have provided.
In another case at the Court of Session, the widow and children of
Greenock taxi driver Raymond Mullan have also raised an action following
the decision of a High Court jury to acquit the man charged with his
murder.
Mrs Margaret Mullan and her three children are claiming #100,000 from
Mr David Anderson, of Nelson road, Gourock, who was charged with
stabbing Mr Mullan through the heart during a taxi journey from Gourock
to Greenock in February 1990.
As in Mr Auld's case, the jury returned a not proven verdict against
Mr Anderson.
A legal debate in the Mullan case is expected soon and the Court of
Session will have to make a policy decision as to whether actions for
damages of the Duffy and Mullan type should be allowed following an
acquittal by a jury in criminal proceedings.
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