Alex Salmond demands new laws to bypass Supreme Court

The First Minister, writing in The Scotsman today, said the current situation "must not be allowed to continue" after the London-based court ruled last week that Nat Fraser's conviction for the murder of his estranged wife Arlene should be quashed on human rights grounds.

The decision prompted an angry reaction from SNP ministers. Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill even claimed the Supreme Court judges' knowledge of Scottish law was limited to what they might pick up on a trip to the Edinburgh Festival.

Mr MacAskill made the comment despite the fact that two of its justices, Lord Hope and Lord Rodger, have both held the posts of Lord Justice General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland.

Mr Salmond writes that the Supreme Court's authority to rule on human rights issues has been "construed widely".

He writes: "This means that it is far easier to raise a 'devolution issue' and effectively creates a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court in Scottish Criminal Cases. That was never the anticipated role of the court."

The Scottish Government wants to see the role of the court removed from criminal appeal cases altogether.

Mr Salmond adds: "The current situation where criminal appeals decided in Scotland by a court of as many as seven Scottish judges can be overruled by a Supreme Court bench made up of five judges - or on occasion seven - with a maximum of two from Scotland, must not be allowed to continue."

The Supreme Court also sparked controversy in Scotland for a ruling known as the Cadder judgment on the rights of suspects to legal representation. The ruling on 26 October last year - which overturned a decision by seven senior Scottish judges - found that allowing suspects to be held and questioned for six hours without access to a lawyer breached the European Convention on Human Rights.

An expert legal group of senior legal figures has now been established by the government to look into the issue and will report back in the next few weeks.

But ministers are now ready to prepare "suitable" amendments to the Scotland Bill in time to be considered by the Scottish Parliament.

The bill, now going through Westminster, proposes a major shake-up of the powers of Holyrood, including greater tax-raising abilities and the authority to borrow billions of pounds to fund major building projects.

"If the bill was amended to restore the High Court as the final court of criminal appeal in Scotland, human rights claims would continue to be raised in Scottish criminal cases," Mr Salmond added.

These cases take place, under the Human Rights Act, in Scottish courts and dealt with by Scottish judges.

There would be an appeal to the High Court of Justiciary and the possibility of appeal on crucial human rights issues to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

However, the Supreme Court would be taken out of the equation,

"That is the right way forward for a Scotland which believes in standing on its own two feet and has confidence in its own government, parliament and judiciary," Mr Salmond writes.

But Tory justice spokesman John Lamont warned against using cases such as the Supreme Court's Nat Fraser ruling to pick constitutional fights.

He said: "This rare appeal is based on the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into Scots law, a convention of which Alex Salmond and the SNP are enthusiastic supporters. Alex Salmond needs to explain why he would rather such appeals were sent to a European court instead of being heard here in the UK."

For Scottish criminal cases, the court can be used only when the case relates to "devolution matters", a term covering the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in dealing with human rights issues.

Human rights lawyer John Scott has said Mr Salmond was wrong to be concerned by the actions of the court.

He said: "I think there's a sense of perspective being lost. Only a very tiny number of cases ever go to the Supreme Court. It doesn't have jurisdiction over the vast majority of criminal cases."

A group has already considered the role of the court in Scottish matters. The body included Paul McBride, QC, and another former Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd. It concluded that the Supreme Court should "ensure that fundamental rights" are secured for everyone in the UK.

The group said the existing "devolution minute" process should no longer apply and that jurisdiction should be clearly limited to ensuring compliance with the UK's international obligations.

Fraser was jailed for life in January 2003 after being found guilty of killing his wife Arlene, who went missing in Elgin in April 1998. Her body was never found. In 2005 two inquiries were ordered after it emerged that evidence concerning Mrs Fraser's rings was not made available during the trial.

Fraser's appeal against his conviction was rejected in May 2008, despite claims by his defence team that he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The following year he made a failed attempt to appeal to the Privy Council in London, before claiming during a legal debate before judges in Edinburgh that his earlier appeal did not receive a fair hearing. But the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh ruled this as incompetent.

That ruling led him to challenge his conviction at the Supreme Court, which last week ruled his conviction unsafe.