It is said that bad cases make bad law and that is undoubtedly true following the murder of Rory Blackhall.

Several MSPs seem to have forgotten the reasons why in our law, in the law of every civilised system and in the Convention of Human Rights, itself being based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations, everyone charged with a criminal offence is innocent until proved guilty. Maybe they are either too young or too ignorant of recent history. To suggest that simply because someone is charged with paedophilic crimes, he should not be granted bail and be placed on the sex offenders register beggars belief. Have they forgotten the attack on a Paediatrician because those involved were too stupid to know that did not mean paedophile? Do they not know the effect of being put on the Register nor the difficulties the police have in dealing with those on it having being properly convicted let alone adding others simply because they have been charged? Is there any bandwagon upon which they are not desperate to jump?

Perhaps too they are unaware that, despite being charged with serious crimes, some accused are innocent, not only in law, but also in fact.

Harris was charged with several offences against female children from a period that ended five years before he appeared in court. What information is now available, that was not available then, that in February he continued to be a danger to children? Hind sight gives marvellous vision. Unless the MSPs have information not in the public domain, on what possible basis, other than the simple fact that he was charged with offences of that nature, should he be denied the same fundamental rights as anyone else? I await with interest the statement from an MSP that setting fire to a hotel full of sleeping guests is such a case where the presumption of innocence should be ignored and the desperados committing such heinous crimes be locked up immediately, or would that be too close for comfort at Holyrood?

Next, criticism is made because Harris was not immediately arrested on a warrant having failed to turn up at court, not for trial, but for a preliminary hearing. In the first place, Rory Blackhall was dead before the warrant was granted. Arresting Harris has nothing to do with saving the child. Nor do we yet know when he hanged himself. Was it before, or after he was due in court?

Warrants are granted for many reasons without it necessarily being intended, and certainly not desirable, that the accused be arrested and kept in custody. For example, because it is necessary in criminal cases that every case be continued to a fixed date, should someone fail to answer it properly a warrant is taken to keep the proceedings live. Now let us assume that, for example, someone fails to answer a charge of not having a TV licence and a warrant is taken to keep the case live while enquiries are made as to why he, or she, so failed. Is it really thought desirable that such a warrant be immediately issued to the police, the person’s door broken in and he or she then be hauled off to the cells overnight? Or should the warrant be issued and put on the National computer database so that he, or she, should be arrested and taken off the plane at Heathrow? The fact is that the Clerk of Court has to prepare the warrant, the Judge then has to sign it and it has to be passed to the PF so that appropriate instructions specific to the actual circumstances in this particular case can be given to the police. All of this has to take some time. Is it really being proposed that these safeguards be ignored and all warrants simply be passed instantly to the police with universal instructions to arrest the individual concerned? Watch out for the screams of protest from the same MSPs.

Of course there are some warrants, which must be exercised fully and immediately. These are rare exceptions. Why is Harris’s warrant one of these? It was not going to save the child’s life. If it is suggested he might have been caught alive, that presumes that he still was. It may be suggested that by being brought to trial, Rory’s parents would have been given answers as to why. That is naïve. From the many murder cases I have dealt with, there is not one where the killer gave answers that helped the victim’s family. Unfortunately, the opposite is the norm. Furthermore how many families feel that the sentence passed is sufficient and justice done? Not many.

Why too should the police have turned their attention to him earlier because he was charged with paedophilic offences? It appears that there was no sexual interference with Rory. Furthermore he was a boy and Harris’s charges related exclusively to girls. Harris lived a mile away. So too did a large number of people in the same area of over 3 square miles of town. There was nothing to suggest Harris should have been an immediate target.

Rory’s death is every parent’s nightmare. However that is no reason not to consider the circumstances in context rationally and coolly. Inappropriate snap judgements help nobody. We are entitled to expect better of our politicians.