The Lord Advocate:

In Scotland, evidence of a previous conviction can be admitted in the course of a trial only very rarely and in exceptional circumstances. That is not the case in many other jurisdictions, where evidence of similar fact, including previous convictions, may be introduced as part of the Crown case to show a disposition, particularly if the conviction relates to a similar crime. That is not the situation in Scotland. It would make my life as a public prosecutor easier if I could lead such evidence, but that is not to say that that is the correct approach. The matter must be considered objectively by the Government, the Parliament and others more widely so that a fair balance is reached. It would not be appropriate for someone who could be perceived as partisan to decide on such principles. Of course I would say that I want prosecutions to be made easier and to have more evidence available. My view is that allowing such evidence would enable more prosecutions to take place but, in a democracy, a balance must be struck by the Parliament rather than by prosecutors.

Mr Stewart asked about the risk management of Angus Sinclair. As Mr Stewart knows, Angus Sinclair is serving a sentence of imprisonment. He is not due to be paroled until 2016. That will be a matter for the Parole Board for Scotland. He is serving a number of life sentences and the Parole Board for Scotland will decide if or when he will be released on to the streets. That is not a matter for ministers, nor is it a matter for the prosecutor.