Inquisitorial or adversarial?<br> The role of the Scottish prosecutor and special defences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.118Keywords:
comparative criminal procedure, prosecution, impartiality, defence disclosure, special defences, inquisitorial and adversarial procedure, Scottish lawAbstract
This article discusses whether a rule that requires the defence to give prior notice of its strategy and arguments to the prosecution has any bearing on the role of the prosecutor being inquisitorial or adversarial. The rule of special defences in Scottish criminal procedure, which combines inquisitorial and adversarial characteristics, is analysed. On the basis of the historical background of this rule and of Scottish criminal procedure in general, it is submitted that the rule exemplifies inquisitorial ideology, while Scottish procedure is by and large adversarial. The prosecutor may well be expected to use the information gained from an advance notice in an impartial manner, requiring him to investigate exculpatory evidence for the defence. Even though no clear legal duty to that effect exists, the Scottish prosecutor has considerable discretion to engage in informal cooperation with the defence. It is argued that a duty to act impartially may exist within this context of informal cooperation. The Scottish example shows that a rule on special defences need not imply an inquisitorial role for the prosecutor, but it can do so. As prosecutorial discretion and informal cooperation are pivotal for this inquisitorial role, the coherence of the criminal process may change if this discretion is limited by prosecution directives. The resulting loss of the magisterial role of the prosecutor may have to be compensated by a stronger position for the defence, as it may be dependent on the prosecutor’s impartiality for a fair trial.Downloads
Published
2010-01-25
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2010 The Author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant Utrecht Law Review right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Utrecht Law Review.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Once accepted for publication, the final version of the paper must be provided. A completed and signed copyright form, which will be sent by the Managing Editor, must accompany each paper. By signing the form the author states to accept the copyright notice of Utrecht Law Review. The copyright notice for authors is also included in the copyright acceptance form.