I was interested and amused to read John Taylor’s tale of his experience in Selkirk Sheriff Court in the 1980s. It brought back a memory for me also. In fact, I may have been responsible for John Taylor’s client having his trial being considered by a sheriff who was parachuted in from distant parts.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s I represented a client called ‘Davy’, whose back garden in Galashiels backed on to the Tweed. His face was well known on the river and in Selkirk Sheriff Court.

On the occasion that I remember, Davy was charged with taking salmon on a stretch of the Tweed immediately downstream of the stretch of the river which the resident sheriff was entitled to fish through membership of a syndicate.

When the case was called, I indicated to the resident sheriff that I was surprised that he was dealing with it because of his fishing rights which I understood that he exercised. I pointed out that that he may have been deprived of catching any of the fish that my client was alleged to have taken. I therefore invited him to exercise his power of declinature and recuse himself.

As many of your older readers will be aware, the resident sheriff at that time had a ruddy complexion. After I made my invitation his complexion became even ruddier, and he proceeded, with obvious restraint, but very politely, to decline my invitation.

The trial proceeded, and much to the surprise of both the accused, the fiscal and the defence agent, a not guilty verdict was returned. Far be it from me to suggest the learned sheriff might have had in mind the prospect of an appeal on the ground of conflict of interest.

It may be, therefore, that as a result of this case the practice evolved of a sheriff from distant parts being brought in by the sheriff clerk to deal with John Taylor’s client’s case and other similar cases. I can well understand the cold snap feeling experienced by Mr Taylor and the fiscal.

As well as being a successful poacher, Davy was both a skilled drystane dyker and an accomplished and entertaining spoon player. He was in receipt of legal aid to cover the cost of his representation. However, on a subsequent occasion, my elder son and I were entertained by him playing the spoons for us and I did receive a ‘gift’ the nature of which I cannot possibly divulge on the grounds it might incriminate me – but it was not a drystane!

Peter Gillam