The Court refused to interpose its authority to oblige the King's Advocate to concur in a prosecution.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Sir John Gordon of Invergordon brought a complaint before the Court of Justiciary against his Majesty's Advocate, “for a breach of duty, in refusing to bring a criminal indictment before this Court against Colonel John Scot and others, as guilty of bribery and corruption at the Michaelmas elections of Dingwall 1758, though he was required so to do by Sir John Gordon, the complainer; and praying that the Court would interpose their authority to oblige his Majesty's Advocate to prosecute the said cause.” And in support of the complaint, it was urged, that any private informer of a crime, giving sufficient evidence, and offering to pay the expense of the prosecution, has a right to demand of the King's Advocate, that he should prosecute that crime for his Majesty's interest; and to demand the interposition of the Court, in case of refusal.
Answered for the King's Advocate, That there is nothing more fixed in our law, than that the prosecution of all crimes ad vindictam publicam belongs to the King and to his Advocate acting by his authority. Hence it is, that he may insist in such actions, or desert them as he sees cause, without any controul on the part of the Court. Contradictory to this known privilege, the direct tendency of the present complaint is, to transfer the vindicta publica from the King to every private informer who is willing to defray the expense of the prosecution, generally more out of resentment than zeal for the public.
