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.