700-year-old treason charge against Wallace 'will not be ruled a miscarriage of justice'

Published on Sunday 19 April 2009 22:01

THE treason charges which led to the execution of Scottish hero Sir William Wallace will never be ruled a miscarriage of justice.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has decided it has no jurisdiction over the London court that found the victor of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 guilty of treason. Its English counterpart has also confirmed it will never pursue the Wallace case – widely regarded as being based on trumped-up charges against a man who led the Scottish army in the wars of independence.

The SCCRC, set up in the 1990s to examine potential miscarriages of justice, was asked to look into the 700-year-old conviction but refused to do so.

SCCRC chief executive Gerry Sinclair said: "I had to point out that, as he had been tried and punished in London, it did not fall within our jurisdiction, but would be for the English Commission to consider."

Mr Sinclair said his team also decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it would not be "in the public interest" to do so.

He said: "Our own statutory provisions place no time limit on the review of cases, but clearly some time limit has to be applied as it cannot be in the interests of justice to spend public time and resources on historical miscarriages which can achieve no practical benefit today."

The Criminal Case Review Commission, the equivalent of the SCCRC in England and Wales, said it would not review cases such as Wallace's because of tougher appeal court rules south of the border.

Scots historians have long claimed Wallace was wrongly convicted of treason in London in 1305. Effectively the ruler of Scotland at the time, he had been accused of betraying an English crown he did not recognise.

Many experts have been keen to see a review of the Wallace case, a milestone in European law as well as the troubled relations between England and Scotland. Wallace's English enemy, Edward I is seen north of the border as a murderous, invading tyrant – but in England, he is seen as a reformer who created much of the country's current legal system, including the introduction of solicitors and barristers.

The Wallace trial was designed to show that English law held sway north of the border.

Leading historian Professor Tom Devine said: "The treason charge was a concoction based on the assumption that Scotland was a province of England. In that sense it was a mistrial. Scotland had been recognised as an independent nation by the papacy and, therefore, any treason charge was just a reflection of an arrogant English monarchy."

Wallace admitted a whole stream of charges other than treason. Lawyers argue these might be made to stick, even 700 years on. Prof Devine, who is head of the school of history, classics and archaeology at Edinburgh University, added: "Wallace was portrayed as a brigand. But one man's brigand is another man's national hero."

John Finlay, who teaches history of law at Glasgow University, added: "It was technically possible for a knight to be tried by someone other than his own sovereign for crimes against the code of chivalry."

Leading mediaevalist Hector MacQueen, a law professor at Edinburgh University, said that any review of the case would effectively have to decide whether Scotland was independent or not and, therefore, whether Wallace owed any allegiance to Edward I.

"Any review would be a mediaeval legal minefield," Prof MacQueen said. "Perhaps it is better left to historical monologues than the Court of Appeal. I happen to think Wallace was innocent. But then, I am biased."

David Ross, the convener of the William Wallace Society, admitted some of his hero's followers may have committed atrocities, but claimed Wallace himself was a pious man who was murdered by his enemies.