When Elish Angiolini took to the floor of the Scottish Parliament to defend the Judiciary’s handling of the World’s end case she showed she doesn’t mind a fight. Steven Raeburn meets the Lord advocate in Glasgow to find out what other surprises she has up her sleeve.

---

She has been busy, there’s no question about that. Since holding her post as Lord Advocate after Colin Boyd’s resignation, and following the return of the SNP administration, Elish Angiolini has propelled herself forward with considerable velocity, juggling the dichotomous tasks of publicly representing the Crown and the Prosecution Service when necessary, with paddling furiously under the surface - and for the most part out of the public eye - to drive forward evolution in the criminal justice system, such as the recent summary justice reforms, the opening of the Scottish prosecution College for the training of fiscals, and the specialised training of prosecutors in areas of law such as sexual offences and even wildlife transgressions.

The collapse of HMA v Sinclair - the World’s End case - is the kind of intermittent high profile event that can define the tenure of the Lord Advocate, much as Chokhar and Lockerbie did for Colin Boyd, although Angiolini’s deft handling of the furore and the public exchange of views with the Lord President, Lord Hamilton that followed, proved that she was far too capable a lawyer and too sharp a politician to fall into that trap.

If you have seen her at work, she looks like she is well up for it. She giggles if the joke is funny and she’s great fun over a glass of wine, but you wouldn’t want to annoy her, either. She has risen to, and in many ways exceeded, the brief of the role, which seems to be struggling to catch up with her. Sipping a coffee in her Glasgow office, she seems to be have been in a relaxed mood in the year or so since the SNP took over.

“I feel very comfortable with the role. It is extremely onerous, which is a heavy challenge to your intellectual agility, your stamina and resilience. It is a huge privilege and every day is fascinating. To be in a position to try to influence change is very precious,” she says.
“What I have to try and do is exploit the opportunity to set about what I would like to see changed, acknowledging that I can only change a part of it and have to assist in influencing change elsewhere.

“With ministerial colleagues, there was a complete change with the election, and suddenly all those who I had been advising in my capacity as Lord Advocate suddenly disappeared and in came a whole new cast and everyone had to form new relationships. While I got on very well with most of the nationalist members of Parliament when I was in the previous administration, it was entirely new. That has been an interesting dynamic. People are polite and very professional. Certainly the bench have been very professional towards me. I am sure most people think I am a huge irritant.”

Her predecessor Colin Boyd is a far less gregarious and bubbly character, with a less energetic style, and the contrast between the two is significant. Angiolini bristles with energy and talks with such rapidity she is practically singing, yet she is never less than precise, articulate, thorough and enlightening. One suspects it would be quite something to know her outside her professional time, although given the demands of the job, she has very little of that. It is the application of her personality to the role which is the single most significant factor singling her out from others who have held the post, rather than her background or gender.

“You can only be yourself, and the most important thing is that you are yourself, and don’t ape what you think a Lord Advocate should be, or that persona should be. If you have been selected, it is on the basis of your qualities, your competence and your integrity,” she says.

“But there are fundamental constant qualities which you have to have as a Lord Advocate. One of them has to be absolute integrity in your approach to the law. You are in an immensely privileged position and therefore the potential for abuse of power would be great. You have to have people who are fundamentally honest, competent in the law, capable of understanding what a 21st century justice system should deliver.”

She is nevertheless keen to distance herself from the public eye, and would prefer any appreciation of her work as a law officer to be focused on the entire Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service.

“The cult of personality is a real danger. If as a prosecutor you attempt to be popular, it is the thin end of the wedge and the corrosion of the independence of the Lord Advocate,” she says. “You cannot be popular. If you seek popularity you are on a hiding to
nothing. It would be a quick fix if you did things to please the readers  of a tabloid newspaper. In a mature democracy what you have to do isthe right thing based on an objective, professional assessment of the evidence. The consequence of how you are perceived by the public is  important in the sense of public confidence, which is part of what holds up a democracy. If you have no public confidence then you are in danger of having a system which would bow to the clamour of the media. Very often the decisions which we make which are the most unpopular,are absolutely the right decisions. You have to take those decisions,
irrespective of how you are perceived.”

The framework and practice of the criminal law have evolved rapidly in the last ten years, and continue to do so with summary justice reform, expanded police powers and changes to the administration of justice. It becomes clear that Angiolini is keen to see a far greater understanding of the law and its practice by members of the public, and would welcome aspects of legal citizenship becoming part of higher education, but acknowledges that wider understanding is not straightforward to achieve.
The introduction of cameras to court proceedings is one aspect of procedure she argues could assist in greater public understanding of the criminal law.

“There is a thin line between public information and entertainment. Going to court is a traumatic prospect. Whilst it is absolutely crucial that the system opens up and is better understood by the public, not just the elite permanent users of the court, it is important that they get the message; we are living in a visual age and we need to visually see the judges in action and listen to their full judgement. The benefit and the beauty of that is that there isn’t a spin put on it. You see it unqualified. I am supportive of it, with a view to ensuring that what we do is guided by the public interest, as opposed to voyeurism or entertainment, without entering into an age of spin.”

Elish Angiolini’s most prominent act since her tenure was to take to the floor of the Parliament to explain at length the circumstances which led to the sudden collapse of the World’s End murder trial, an action which  drew criticism from the judiciary which she swiftly batted away. It may ultimately prove to be the defining moment of her tenure, although one suspects it will not. Whilst it is not unprecedented for a Lord Advocateto make such a statement, it is certainly not routine, although it does somehow seem quintessentially characteristic of her feistiness.

“There is a very delicate balance between the independence of the prosecutor not pandering to the media or political pressure. You have to have the autonomy and the sense that what you are doing is right. You have been appointed to make decisions irrespective of the maelstrom taking place outside the office,” she says.“I think sometimes there is a confusion between independence
and isolation. By communication you enhance the strength of your independence. If we can explain to the public, that enhances our
independence. There was -quite-rightly- considerable public concern that a crime of major historic significance which had suddenly collapsed on that day.

That is something that took us all by surprise. There was a build up, and what was happening very quickly was that there was a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding in the press about what the evidence was.

“Had a press statement gone out, it would have been utterly inadequate because it was so complex. I felt the best way to explain that and balance my accountability with public understanding would be to explain it in the forum in which the Lord Advocate’s accountability is brought to bear, which is in the Scottish Parliament.”

“Sometimes you have to ensure the information is put out in a way which is full and comprehensive. I have a right to address the Parliament.I have a duty to address the Parliament. But I also have a veto, and if I do not consider it in the public interest, then I will not discuss a case.”

Coffee or no coffee, I wouldn’t argue with her.