Lord advocate calls for contempt of court reform in SLN Annual Review 2015

Writing in Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2015, the Mr Mulholland suggests the law is no longer adequate to deal with the explosion of online information with the potential to prejudice criminal cases.

A key part of the contempt law is preventing the publication of material which could influence a jury and jeopardise the chances of an accused receiving a fair trial.

In particular, he expressed concern about the 1981 Act’s ability to deal with challenges posed by the ending of the centuries-old double jeopardy rule, which used to prevent a person from being brought before the courts for a second time on the same charge after being acquitted.

Ending double jeopardy led to Angus Sinclair being convicted of the murders of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie following a night out in Edinburgh’sWorld’s End pub in 1977. The law change meant Mr Sinclair was convicted in November last year, despite being acquitted of the crimes in 2007.

Mr Sinclair’s most recent trial saw the Crown Office ask media organisations to remove coverage of the previous trial from the internet as well as details of his previous convictions in an attempt not to prejudice the case.

In his article, which featured in Scotland on Sunday yesterday, the lord advocate said that the time was right to change the act and added that the Scottish Law Commission was “ideally placed” to undertake the review.

He added: “There are problems with the act which have arisen as a result of the passage of time, changing social habits and attitudes and developments in modern communication and the law.

“The change in the double jeopardy law has highlighted the need for reform. The current Act did not foresee this change in the law.”

The Sinclair trial saw the mainstream media take down archives relating to the case. But media organisations pointed out that this action was taken despite a plethora of online material being available to the public from other sources.

Although the ­article does not make any specific suggestions on how the act should be changed, he said: “During my time as Lord Advocate I do not wish to see a breakdown in the ­process by which both responsible publishers and the courts uphold the rule of law, which is why I believe the time has come for the Act to be looked at in light of the dramatically changed media landscape and changes in other legislation.”

He suggested research ought to be done to find out the effect of information about a case on a juror’s judgment and asked: “Do we actually know what the effect of such information is on jurors who give an oath to well and truly try an accused according to the evidence?”