Further to the answer to question S2W-10095 by Cathy Jamieson on 17 September 2004, what steps it will take to give the reasons why cases r…

13% of all cases received by procurators fiscal were marked “no proceedings” between April 2003 and March 2004. 64% of the cases marked “no proceedings” were marked in this way because:
· there was insufficient admissible evidence (24% of the cases marked “no proceedings”);
· the suspected offence was trivial (27% of the cases marked “no proceedings”), or
· there was a delay in reporting the case by the police or other reporting agency (14% of the cases marked “no proceedings”).
Twenty procurator fiscal’s offices marked more than 13% of their cases “no proceedings” during this time. In total, these offices marked 18% of cases “no proceedings”. 61% of the cases marked “no proceedings” were marked in this way because:
there was insufficient admissible evidence (24% of the cases marked “no proceedings”);
the suspected offence was trivial (25% of the cases marked “no proceedings”), or
there was a delay in reporting the cases by the police or other reporting agency (12% of the cases marked “no proceedings”).
These figures show that the 20 procurator fiscal’s offices were applying the same consistent marking standards to cases as other offices. Any variations in the number of cases marked “no proceedings” reflect the variation in the pattern of offending in different parts of the country and differences in the way in which police forces report very minor offences.
There is continuing and very close co-operation between Area Procurators Fiscal and Chief Constables to ensure that very minor offences or unsuitable cases are not reported unnecessarily.