Prosecutors were told of issues in 2013 – yet they continued to pursue cases until 2015.

Ms Bain, who is also a member of the cabinet due to the lord advocate’s dual role, could face questions at Holyrood over the Crown Office’s failure to disclose concerns in that period.

Mr Yousaf, who wants to use a legislative consent motion to allow the UK government’s new law to also apply north of the border, said there were “legitimate questions to ask of the Crown Office”.

Speaking at first minister’s questions, he said: “The Crown Office were assured by the Post Office and their legal representatives that issues that arose with the Horizon system in England did not impact on any live Scottish cases.”

Douglas Ross, the Scottish Conservative leader, said the “actions of the Crown Office in Scotland should trouble us greatly” and noted that as early as January 2013 prosecutors had abandoned a case over “issues with Horizon”.

He said: “The procurator fiscal has a legal duty to disclose relevant information to those accused of crimes, and that duty continues even after a trial is concluded. As soon as the Fiscal became aware of concerns about the reliability of Horizon, that should have been disclosed.”

Dean of Faculty, Roddy Dunlop KC, said the intervention of parliaments in judicial decisions was “highly controversial”.

“That concept is likely to yield to expediency in this particular instance, as it would be time consuming and expensive to address every appeal on its merits. However, this remains highly controversial,” he said.

He also questioned Mr Yousaf’s claims that it “shouldn’t have taken a television drama [Mr Bates vs the Post Office] for the UK government to act on the Post Office Horizon scandal”.

“If it is thought that the solution lies in legislation rather than litigation, then the solution for Scottish convictions lies with the Scottish parliament — as justice is a devolved matter,” he said.

“Accordingly, if it is deemed constitutionally acceptable to pass legislation quashing convictions — and I can see that the highly unusual circumstances of these cases make that the preferred option, especially given the extreme unlikelihood of anyone challenging it — then that is something that could have been done by the Scottish parliament, without waiting for Westminster.”