Lord Advocate’s Reference

Principal Clerk of the Justiciary,

Mr. John Anderson,

Supreme Courts, Lawnmarket,

Edinburgh. EH1 2NS

26/9/00

Dear Mr. Anderson, Clerk of the Justiciary,

Ref: Lord Advocates Reference No 1 2000 1. I understand that the continued hearing for this Friday, 29^th September will deal with arguments as to possible changes to the LAR Questions. I would therefore on my own behalf like to enrol the following motion for the 29^th September: ’I would like consideration to be given at the hearing on Friday 29^th September to my arguments for changing the wording of the 4 LAR Questions to ones that more fairly reflect the Greenock Case from which they arose. For your convenience I have appended the arguments I wish to make.’ 2. I have still not received a copy of any interlocutor sheet from the hearing on the 12^th September - was one produced? And if so when can I expect a copy please? 3. I have put below a few of the statements made by Lord Prosser and Mr. Moynihan Q.C. on 12^th September as being a record of my understanding of the role of Mr. Moynihan as amicus curiae. Mr. Moynihan has agreed that they are an accurate reflection of the decision made on September 12^th. Please inform me if the Court’s understanding is different from the below:-

Lord Prosser agreed the following:-

1. ’it would not be a function of the amicus curiae to try and improve, clarify and supplement what has been said by the Crown against the Respondent’;

2. ’if you disagreed with something that is said by Ms Zelter in submission ... you would have to take very scrupulous care not to undermine her argument. That is not your role’;

3. ’I think that you would see that as your role, not to contradict the arguments used’ (by me). Gerry Moynihan agreed the following:-

1). ’it would be my intention ... to make a submission in advance of the hearing so that party’s representatives can see what, professionally, I might say ... I can exchange them at the same time as the other Parties’;

2) ’I am content to have placed upon me an onus to put in such written submissions as I deem appropriate so that no-one is caught on the hop by what I submit’;

3) ’If the Crown did not lock horns (on a proposition that I put forward and Gerry did not support, then although Gerry would be entitled to indicate that he did not support Angie nevertheless) ... if the Crown did not lock horns, and conceded the point, I would not seek to open the point up’

4) Not to contradict my arguments but to be a contradictor to the Lord Advocate.

Yours in peace and love,

Angie Zelter.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top