1. Defence counsel request that the media exercise responsible and due care in reporting this matter.
2. At no stage, since the hearing have defence counsel been
approached by media for comment, to provide fair and balanced reporting of events.
3. Every person is entitled to fair and balanced reporting.
4. Every person is also entitled to a fair hearing in a Court of Law.
5. The indictment for perjury against Lord Dalgety has been quashed by the Supreme Court.
6. This means the indictment has been (in layperson terms) dismissed or discharged.
7. It has been reported that the indictment was quashed on a
'technicality' and the Crown intended to appeal.
8. The indictment being quashed on a mere 'technicality' is not true.
9. This view appears to be aimed at undermining the importance of the indictment being quashed.
10. It also appears to try to undermine the fact that the charge no longer exists and that Lord Dalgety's name has been cleared.
11. The reasoning leading to the indictment being quashed goes to the very Essence of the Rule of Law.
12. The Crown failed to do their job properly.
13. The Crown failed to fulfill the key requirements for laying the (now quashed) charge against Lord Dalgety and did not follow best practices for prosecutions.
14. The laying of an indictment (a serious imprisonable charge) is taken very seriously by the Courts, Prosecutors and Defence
counsel.
15. In deciding whether to prosecute or not, the fairness and
responsibility to the community and its members is paramount.
16. The essential evidential elements to justify prosecution must also exist.
17. These indispensable premises exist as a checklist to protect individuals of the community against excesses in the exercise of authority by the State.
18. This very careful process has been the practice in the Common Law world for hundreds of years.
2.
19. An indictment must be in proper form and accurately lay out the reason(s) for the charge to a very high standard of proof.
20. The Crown failed to do so.
21. The Crown had the past eight months to accurately and correctly prepare their prosecution and despite requests from both defence counsel and the Court – they failed to do so.
22. Justice Schuster stated during the hearing, that the reason for laying the charge was 'very thin' and 'sparse'.
23. Justice Schuster also stated that,"It is not good enough. The Indictment is a nullity. It is not valid".
24. Defence counsel have advised Lord Dalgety that he may consider issuing legal proceedings for malicious prosecution against those responsible for pressing this charge.
25. This would be considered upon the final determination of this case - should that situation arise.
26. Defence counsel maintain there was never sufficient basis to have ever laid this charge against Lord Dalgety.
27. The indictment should not have been laid in the first place.
28. The indictment has always been lacking in its essential elements in all respects, as required even by the most basic notions of fair and proper prosecution practice. Lord Dalgery Legal Counsels, 02/11/10.