The Lord Advocate:

As I have mentioned, I have raised the issue of the appeal with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Clearly, it is for the Executive, collectively, not for me, as an independent prosecutor, to influence that. It is a matter that the Parliament must consider. However, the idea about a period of five working days sounds reasonable, if such an appeal were to be constructed. Certainly, the notion of having to discharge a jury in the middle of a trial would be unappealing, given that evidence had been heard. I think that some creativity around how that would be constructed would be important in order to ensure that distressing evidence, which will have caused anguish and trauma to people who have had to hear it, does not have to be repeated because of a decision made at that stage.

Of course, the power of the judge to reject the Crown case at its conclusion, following a no case to answer submission, was introduced only in 1980. Prior to that, all evidence would have been put to the jury, unless there was what was known as a common-law submission before the jury. At that time, the right of appeal by the Crown was given, in summary cases, before a sheriff or a justice of the peace. However, that did not happen in solemn cases, which are those that are heard before a sheriff and a jury or in the High Court.