The Lord Advocate:

Of course, although it can only pale in comparison to the pain that the families of Helen Scott and Christine Eadie must be feeling, no one could feel anything but the most extreme pain at the conclusion of the case—certainly not the prosecutor who devoted 18 months of his life to the conduct of the case.

On the question of the law officers' involvement in the case, as area procurator fiscal, Frank Mulholland supervised the preparation and investigation of the case before he was appointed as Solicitor General for Scotland. Since then, because of his previous role, he has continued to provide support to the advocate depute in the case up until and, indeed, during the trial.

On the question whether the Crown counsel consulted a law officer on the decision not to lead the DNA evidence, there was no such consultation nor, as I said in my statement, would I expect there to be. I appoint advocate deputes because I have absolute confidence in their judgment. They must have the independence to make such decisions except in very restricted and limited circumstances. The reason for that is not preciousness but because the only person who can determine what evidence should be led once a trial has commenced is the person who presents the case in court. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and other Crown counsel will not have seen the responses of jurors to particular aspects of evidence or be able to tell the nuances of how the evidence has emerged during the course of the case. Nor will they be able to tell whether the evidence has come out as anticipated, because evidence on paper is often very different from the evidence that emerges during a trial. The only person who has a grip on what the sensitivity is of the evidence that should be presented is the advocate depute. For that reason, only the most eminent and able lawyers are appointed as Crown counsel.

On the question of a right of appeal, it is not appropriate that I, as the public prosecutor, should set the goalposts for where the evidence should be led. That is a matter for the Executive and for the Parliament. However, I have expressed my concern about the absence of such a right of appeal for the prosecutor in Scotland. Indeed, I raised the matter with the Minister for Justice some weeks ago, but I did not do so in the context of any particular case. Hard cases make bad law, so there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to a particular case. However, as the public prosecutor, I have raised that matter in another context.

On the question of the lessons to be learned, I am of course happy to return to the Parliament and to the Justice Committee to explain what lessons have been learned as a result of the review of the case.