For years, organisations raising concerns about wrongful convictions and the operation of evidential restrictions have written to MSPs. They raised questions about Sections 274 and 275, the so-called “rape shield” provisions, and whether their interpretation had become overly restrictive. They questioned political rhetoric that emphasised improving conviction rates, and whether that focus risked distorting the balance between complainant protection and the rights of the accused.

They asked for meetings. Silence followed.

• The Scottish Conservatives did not foreground the presumption of innocence as a central reform issue.
• Scottish Labour did not press consistently for review when campaigners argued that the balance had shifted too far.
• The Scottish National Party continued to promote a “victim-centred” model of reform, raising legitimate debate about how that model should coexist with the procedural rights of the accused.

At the centre of this stood the Lord Advocate. Criticism of her role was muted, until it became electorally useful.

As the election approaches, the tone has shifted. Opposition parties now attack the Lord Advocate, using her position as a political weapon. But we must ask: where was this urgency during the decade of warnings?

• The Supreme Court Warning: On 12 November 2025, in Daly and Keir v HM Advocate [2025] UKSC 38, the UK Supreme Court held that the prevailing interpretation of Section 275 was “liable to result in violations of the rights of the accused under article 6” of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• The Silent Decade: The interpretation criticised by the Court had developed through case law over a number of years. The Supreme Court concluded that aspects of that approach required modification to ensure compatibility with Article 6.

• The Political Dividend: Defending the procedural rights of accused persons has rarely been a politically comfortable position. Criticism of a government law officer during an election cycle, by contrast, carries obvious political resonance.

Criticising the Lord Advocate now allows parties to attack the Government by proxy. But let’s be clear: this is not the same as standing up for the wrongly convicted.

If these parties were truly concerned about fairness, they would have acted when the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Act 2025 was being debated. Instead, they focused on headlines. Meaningful scrutiny is sustained and consistent. When criticism appears only in particular political moments, the public is entitled to question its depth.

While politicians sharpen their lines for TV debates, the men who claim wrongful conviction, and the families supporting them, still report being ignored.

• Campaigners report difficulty securing meetings.
• Correspondence often goes unanswered.
• Those arguing wrongful conviction concerns rarely receive the same parliamentary visibility as survivor-led groups.

Engagement signals seriousness. Silence signals selectivity. If concern about prosecutorial independence surfaces primarily during an election campaign, it is reasonable for the public to question whether the commitment is principled or situational.

The Lord Advocate’s dual role, as both a Government Minister and Head of Prosecutions, has long attracted constitutional debate. That structure places policy influence and prosecutorial authority within the same office.

When the Government promotes reforms that alter the balance between complainant protection and defence rights, the Lord Advocate advises on their legality and then oversees their application in court.

If the current attacks on the system are sincere, they should extend beyond the election. They should involve listening to the voices that have been shouting into the void for a decade.

If they are not sincere, then the wrongly convicted remain exactly where they have always been: outside the political conversation. Justice should not be a campaign strategy. It is either a principle held at all times, or it is merely a performance.