Chamber and committees

Questions and answers

Parliamentary questions can be asked by any MSP to the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The questions provide a means for MSPs to get factual and statistical information.

Written questions must be answered within 10 working days (20 working days during recess)
Other questions such as Topical, Portfolio, General and First Minister's Question Times are taken in the Chamber

Urgent Questions aren't included in the Question and Answers search. There is a SPICe fact sheet listing Urgent and emergency questions.

Find out more about parliamentary questions

Filter your results Hide all filters

Displaying 3059 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S2W-28532

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), at what point prior to or during Shirley McKie’s trial for perjury the Crown Office became aware that there was (a) a professional challenge to the Scottish Criminal Record Office’s identification of a fingerprint in Marion Ross’s house as that of Shirley McKie and (b) other evidence to show that Ms McKie could not have been in the house when the Crown Office alleged she had been.

The Crown were made aware ata very late stage, just prior to the commencement of the Shirley McKie trial, thatthe defence intended to lead fingerprint evidence challenging the identificationof Y7 by SCRO. No such evidence was available at the time the case was indicted.

In relation to the other evidence,I refer the member to the answer to question S2W-28528 on 28 September 2006. Allanswers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliaments website,the search facility for which can be found at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

Question reference: S2W-28526

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), in how many cases in each of the last 10 years the Crown Office has requested or instructed the police service to investigate or carry out further investigations into an unsolved crime and what the outcomes were of these investigations.

Question reference: S2W-28525

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), what the total cost was of commissioning, preparing and issuing the MacKay report into the Scottish Criminal Record Office’s handling of the Shirley McKie case.

Question reference: S2W-28523

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate's oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), whether the Lord Advocate can now confirm how and when he first became involved in the Shirley McKie case.

Question reference: S2W-28535

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), whether, at any stage in the police inquiry or the Crown Office’s precognition prior to the Lord Advocate’s decision to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury, there had been any denial that five officers had entered, but had not been logged as entering, Marion Ross’s house in Kilmarnock at the time it was a scene of crime.

Question reference: S2W-28528

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), whether any corroborative evidence, in addition to a fingerprint, was in the possession of the Crown Office at the time the Lord Advocate took the decision to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury and, if so, what the evidence was.

As I made clear in my evidenceto the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006, I do not intend to discuss in detailthe evidence involved in the Shirley McKie investigation and trial, as Shirley McKiewas acquitted of the charge brought against her.

There was a sufficiency of evidenceupon which to raise criminal proceedings, and there remained a sufficiency of evidenceat the close of the Crown case – as a result of which the case went to the Juryfor their consideration.

Question reference: S2W-28529

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), whether the police officers who had guarded the scene of crime at Marion Ross’s house in Kilmarnock after she was murdered were all interviewed by the (a) police or (b) Crown Office prior to the Lord Advocate taking the decision to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury.

Question reference: S2W-28534

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006, whether the Lord Advocate will issue a full explanation of what he meant when he told the Justice 1 Committee that “the evidence that was given was not in accordance with what the advocate deputy’s understanding of it was” (Official Report, c. 3705).

Question reference: S2W-28536

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006, whether the Lord Advocate will provide further explanation of what he meant when he told the Justice 1 Committee that the advocate depute “also formed a view on the basis of the information that he had about Mr Wertheim and took the right decision to continue the case” (Official Report, c. 3709) and whether the Lord Advocate will now publish the information to which he was referring.

As I made clear when I gave evidenceto the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006, when the Advocate Depute becameaware of the evidence to be led by the defence from Mr Wertheim and Mr Grieve, hecarefully assessed this, along with the evidence available from the ScottishCriminal Record Office experts. He took the decision to proceed with the trial,and I believe that he made the right decision at that time.

I do not intend to provide anyfurther comment or information in relation to this matter – the assessment of theevidence which required to be carried out at that time was a matter for the professionalassessment of the Advocate Depute, in whom I have great confidence.

Question reference: S2W-28527

Asked by: Alex Neil, MSP for Central Scotland, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Current Status: Answered by Colin Boyd on 28 September 2006

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Lord Advocate’s oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006 (Official Report, c. 3688), what action has been taken by the (a) police and (b) Crown Office to investigate the validity of the report in a national newspaper that a Mr Docherty has allegedly confessed to the murder of Marion Ross.

It is not appropriate to disclosedetails of a criminal investigation, particularly in relation to a specific personor persons, for operational reasons.

As I made clear in my evidenceto the Justice 1 Committee on 12 September 2006, officially the murder of Marion Rossis unsolved and the police do not have any new lines of inquiry at this stage. However,any new lines of inquiry will, where appropriate, be pursued.