I will come in at this stage. Sara Shaw set out in her letter the laws on the admission of evidence. I do not know whether it would help if I read out part of that letter for the committee. Although covert video evidence is applicable in wildlife crime—we have seen a number of cases in which it has been used—it comes into play, of course, in all of the different spheres of law. When we look to consider that type of evidence, we need to think about how it is properly applied and how the implications of how that law is applied could affect other types of crime and the way that cases could progress.
The way that we apply it is very much in line with the case law of Lawrie v Muir. In that case, the full bench concluded that an irregularity in the obtaining of evidence does not necessarily mean that the evidence is inadmissible. However, the prosecutor, acting in the public interest, has to look at that and perform a balancing act, considering whether that irregularity can be excused. That relates to the nature of the irregularity and the circumstances in which it was committed.
You spoke about the Crown having some flexibility, but I am not sure that that is the correct term. We look at the circumstances of each case along with the law that we are following and apply that. We then determine whether we believe that, in those circumstances, there was an irregularity, and if so, whether it is such that it means that everything that flows from it is therefore inadmissible.
Those are the various tests that we apply when we consider cases. I know that we regularly say that cases turn on their facts and circumstances, but that is very much the case. We take the prosecution of wildlife crime seriously, and raptor persecution in particular is a priority. If we have a case where we think that there is sufficient evidence to take it to court, we will do that.
We have a duty as public prosecutors to make quite difficult and unpopular decisions, but we would like to reassure the committee and the public that there is a high degree of scrutiny and consideration when we look at these cases. The specialist prosecutors in the team know the case law and the framework that they are working within, and they have the expertise to consider that.
There will often be disagreements within the team as lawyers discuss how best to apply the law. If that happens, we do not stop there. Often, when we have cases and decisions of such magnitude, reports are prepared for our senior advocate depute within the Crown Office so that they can make the final decision as to whether cases should proceed or whether, in some instances, we should no longer proceed.
I do not know whether that is helpful or whether there is anything that I can expand on.