The second indictment brought to prosecute the owners of the Rosepark Nursing Home in Uddingston has been ruled as incompetent at the High Court today.

14 elderly residents died in a fire at the home in 2004, and an earlier indictment against the individual owners led to the dismissal of the charges at a trial brought in February last year. Lord Hardie ruled at that time that the alleged offences could only be carried out by employers, and the three owners of the home were not employers in law.

Today, the second indictment also failed because the partnership named in the second indictment was now dissolved.

"We are of course very conscious of the undesirability of prosecution of the commission by a partnership of a criminal offence being frustrated by the partnership's ability to dissolve itself, or by its susceptibility to dissolution by other events, particularly if by dissolution the partners are also to be exonerated," Lord Eassie said in his judgement.

"We conclude that the dissolved partnership does not have any continuing legal personality following dissolution and accordingly we consider that the indictment to which the petitions are directed is incompetent."

The decision prompted a swift response from Solicitor General Frank Mulholland QC, who claimed such a position was "previously unknown" in Scots law.

"Today's decision of the Appeal court has clarified the law in relation to the liability of a dissolved partnership for alleged crimes that occurred prior to it being dissolved," he said.

"Although this means that the current indictment cannot proceed consideration is being given to a fresh indictment. As this is a complex area of law and a detailed judgement Crown Counsel will study the judgement and give consideration to the best way forward. Crown Office officials and the Procurator Fiscal have met the families to explain the judgement and the options open to the Crown. We are grateful to the families for their patience in this matter. As soon as a decision is taken we will advise the families of it."

Lord Eassie's full judgement can be read here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008hcjac44.html