Welcome to the first of a series of monthly musings from me as I wander through the legal minefield.

I have found over the years that so few people know and understand the basic rules of criminal law and procedure, it may be of value if I was to set then out over the next few months.

Happily we do not live in a police state and we all have rights, but they do not exist in a vacuum. We also have duties to our fellow citizens. These have to be balanced and sometimes this is more difficult than others.

For example, a pedestrian has a right to cross the road and a driver has a right to drive down the same piece of road. Clearly both cannot exercise their rights at the same time.

You have the right to the peaceful enjoyment of your home as does your neighbour to his. If you have a noisy party, it disturbs his peace, but having a party is a normal part of living and the enjoyment of your home.

Perhaps one way to look at it is to ask if you would like that done to you. If not, then maybe you should not be doing it to another. However even if you would not object, that may not make your action proper as you may simply have peculiar tastes and ideas.

We have to live with each other, respecting others rights as well as expecting them to respect ours. Find the balance.

Criminal law is set out by society and changes as society changes. It is simply what we as citizens of Scotland want and expect everyone to do.

The follows through with our dealings with the police. In general terms, there is no law that requires you to give evidence or help the police. You commit no crime by not doing so. That is your right. However, if you do not do so, you cannot complain when others also decline when you are the victim and in need of help. That is where the balancing duty comes in. If everyone insists on exercising their rights to the letter, society will collapse. Either the driver of the pedestrian has to give way.

On a different tack, I hear the Procurators Fiscal are considering changing their title, as people do not know what it means. What a load of nonsense. Does a chemist chem. And a surgeon surge? Someone has suggested Convictia or, given the recent run of cases, should that be Notconvictia?

Those who know me will expect a legal joke, but instead I shall recount a true story. Many years ago, when a depute fiscal in Edinburgh, were invited to join Lothian and Borders CID Burns Supper. The then solicitor general, Nicky Fairburn QC, was due to be the main event, but was unable to attend. One DC was duly delegated to take over at short notice and commenced by apologising that he could not be expected to come up with a witty address to match Nicky’s. He continued however, by adding that, as there were a number of depute fiscals present, there were enough legal jokes already. I am sure someone will explain to me why that went down so well with the audience.

In Future articles I shall comment upon what is involved if you are a witness in court, endorsement of licences, totting up, getting a clean licence, disqualification, sufficiency of evidence, your rights on detention or arrest, searches, court appearances as well as anything else that catches my eye.

If there are general questions involving some matter of criminal law you wish to raise with me, just drop me a note. Please note that I cannot comment on specific cases, nor give you legal advice. For these you must consult a solicitor.