THE revelations in the recent BBC documentary about the Glasgow bin lorry crash compound my long-held belief that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is institutionally arrogant and uncaring towards the feelings of ordinary people ( "Bin lorry driver: 'I apologise for my role in tragic event' ", The Herald, November 4). Further confirmation, if it were needed, is the heartfelt reaction of the aunt of one of the victims of an earlier fatal accident caused by another driver with a history of passing out behind the wheel, but who, like the bin lorry driver, was granted immunity from prosecution by the Crown Office ("Crown accused of slapdash attitude in death crash cases", The Herald, November 5).

I appreciate that, in order to pursue a prosecution, the Crown must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of a conviction. But in the case of the bin lorry accident, there seems to be some doubt as to whether the Crown Office had, or even could have had, all the available relevant evidence before it when it decided not to prosecute the driver. I find it hard to imagine that the Crown Office would have made the same decision if it had been in possession of all the evidence which emerged from the subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry into the accident. The unfortunate reality is that by making that decision in what appears to be an unduly hasty and perhaps ill-considered fashion, the Crown Office has eliminated any possibility of a jury of 15 ordinary folk ever being allowed the opportunity to hear all the evidence in open court and arrive at their own considered decision.

In relation to the earlier accident which caused the deaths of Laura Stewart and Mhairi Convy in 2010, a Crown Office spokesman now seeks credit for the recent review of that case undertaken "by an independent Crown Counsel who was unconnected to the original case", and who upheld the original decision. This is specious nonsense, since the Crown Office when it announced its intention to carry out that review made clear that the original decision would not be changed. A review with a pre-announced outcome is a waste of time and money.

The actions and attitudes of the Crown Office in relation to the families affected by tragic accidents such as these appear to me to beggar belief. Blinded by the legalistic minutiae of their office, they seem oblivious to the families' grief, and bereft of all compassion. While supporting victims and witnesses at court, I myself have seen on countless occasions how similar behaviour by local procurator fiscal services causes needless anguish to already traumatised and vulnerable people. I can only conclude that the Crown Office's problems are systemic and deep-rooted.

Faced with a petition to review the decision not to prosecute the bin lorry driver, a Scottish Government spokesman claims this is a matter for the Crown Office and not for the Government. I have had similar responses from the Justice Secretary, disclaiming any responsibility for the actions of the Crown Office. If we are really being asked to believe that, no matter how apparently inexplicable, crass or damaging its behaviour, the Crown Office is completely unaccountable, then it seems to me that our criminal justice system is in danger of losing all credibility.

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.