MAGGIE Scott, QC, and Lord Boyd's expected appointments as judges in the coming weeks may seem a surprise.
Archive interview: Maggie Scott Face to Face with The Herald
The surprise over Lord Boyd's move is due to the growing contro- versy over the Lockerbie case and the increasing focus on the Crown role. Ms Scott has been, at times, an outspoken critic of the establishment and has won many of the most controversial appeals in Scotland in recent memory.
They are two of four names to have been put forward to the First Minister to help ease a perceived shortfall in the judiciary.
Last autumn, the Lord President Lord Hamilton warned Scotland was short of judges.
High Court judges in Scotland are almost exclusively recruited from the Faculty of Advocates, which is made up of the country's most senior lawyers. Candidates for the bench are usually QCs, have about 20 years of experience as an advocate and are usually in their mid-to-late fifties.
It is not unusual for former Lord Advocates to become high court judges. In fact, one legal expert pointed out it would be more unusual for a former Lord Advocate not to become a judge.
However, The Herald revealed last month Lord Boyd was criticised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for his handling of CIA cables, referring to Abdul Majid Giaka, an alleged double agent who was a Crown witness.
Mr Giaka identified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as a member of Libyan intelligence, but his subsequent evidence was rejected after revelations in the US intelligence agency's much-redacted cables he had demanded and received reward money.
Lord Boyd had told the trial there was no need for disclosure. However, the SCCRC said it was "difficult to understand" his assurances on August 22, 2000, there was "nothing" within the documents relating to the bombing which could "in any way impinge" on Giaka's credibility. The Crown subsequently shared some of the redacted cables after demands from the defence.
Lord Boyd last month rejected the claim. He said: "I reject the suggestion I or anyone else in the prosecution team failed to disclose material evidence to the defence. All of the relevant CIA cables were disclosed subject to some exceptions, principally to ensure the lives of named individuals were not put at risk.
"I am satisfied the Crown acted with propriety throughout the trial and endeavoured in this case, as with any other conducted in my name as Lord Advocate, to secure the accused's right to a fair trial." He added he was "satisfied" with the verdict.
In a 2001 lecture he said his direct involvement with the case started in 1997 when he became Solicitor General. He chaired the weekly meetings of the prosecution team. His predecessor, Lord Hardie, appointed himself a judge 12 weeks before the trial began.
When he left the Crown Office in 2006 he said he would spend time in the House of Lords and seek private sector work.
Then Labour First Minister Jack McConnell praised him, but the SNP at the time said he had been under a cloud over the Shirley McKie fingerprint case.
The Herald understands Michael Jones, QC, and David Burns, QC, are also recommended for appointments.
Mr Jones, an ex-RAF fighter pilot who left the airforce to study law, became an advocate in 1977 and a QC in 1989. He acted for the News of the World in its Tommy Sheridan defamation case, and the Rosepark care home owners during failed attempts to prosecute them over the deaths of elderly residents in a fire.
Mr Jones quit the Faculty of Advocates three years ago. This barred him from representing clients at the Court of Session or High Court. He retrained as a solicitor advocate, retaining his QC title, and has returned to work in Scotland's highest courts as well as chairing solicitors firm Simpson and Marwick.
Mr Burns was also involved in the Lockerbie trial and acted as a temporary judge at the Court of Session from 2002 to 2005.
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