Dean of the Faculty of Advocates warns against ‘knee-jerk reactions’ and ‘change for change’s sake’ on legal reforms
A leading QC has urged MSPS not to “make change for change’s sake” when they consider reforming the role of Scotland’s Lord Advocate.
Roddy Dunlop, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, has urged caution on splitting the traditional roles of the Lord Advocate and against “kneejerk reactions” on scrapping Scotland’s not proven verdict.
His remarks come as the new Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, and new Solicitor General, Ruth Charteris QC, were sworn in at a ceremony at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Ms Bain replaces James Wolffe QC, who had come under fire during the Scottish Parliament’s inquiry into the government’s handling of harassment complaints against former first minister Alex Salmond.
Concerns were raised about Mr Wolffe’s dual role as head of Scotland’s prosecution service as well as being chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government. There have since been calls for the roles to be separated.
However, Mr Dunlop, who gave advice to the Scottish Government as it attempted to defend itself in Mr Salmond’s judicial review of how it had handled complaints against him, warned against any rash changes. In an interview with Holyrood Magazine, he said: “I think we need to be careful of knee-jerk reactions.
“A lot of noise behind this is being driven by recent travails.
"If you acknowledge that there have been situations of late where problems have arisen, you have to set that against the fact the Lord Advocate’s office is centuries old and has operated sensibly and satisfactorily for centuries.
"The fact there has been a couple of difficult cases in recent times, by all means have a look at it, but don’t make change for change’s sake.”
Mr Dunlop also described Mr Wolffe as "an exceptional lawyer and a man of unimpeachable honour and integrity”.
On the demands to scrap the not proven verdict, a move championed during the Holyrood election, he said: “I have no interest in the politics of it.
"I’monlyinterestedinwhether the reasons for attacking the not proven verdict are sound and I’m not convinced they are."