Analysis: If this were done in another country, we would be outraged

I HAVE never heard of a condition like this being imposed, although I’m aware that there are restrictions on serving prisoners being able to speak to the press.

People subjected to home detention curfews are counted as part of the prison estate, but this restriction on Tommy Sheridan strikes me as being a very unusual one.

It is also potentially a very worrying one, as most people released from prison would be in a position to speak to the media if that situation were to arise. It’s simply that they would not be allowed to profit from it.

I would certainly question the reasons for it, as Mr Sheridan has a significant profile and might have expected to be able to talk publicly about various issues.

He might also have expected to have been asked about his conviction for perjury, as this will be reported upon by the media in the same way as it was with Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer.

Also, Mr Sheridan could contribute to the debate about prison, as he’s someone who comes from a background of caring about poorer people and many of those in prison will be people from poorer backgrounds. Many people would be interested to know what his views were.

But there’s a real concern about the principle at the heart of this because if this were to be done in another country we would all be pretty outraged about it.

The Tommy Sheridan case was always fairly unusual, but once this sort of condition is imposed it sets a dangerous precedent. One thing that would be particularly worrying is if someone challenging a conviction, who was released from prison, was to be told that they couldn’t speak about it. That would have very serious implications for justice in Scotland, which is one of the reasons why this restriction imposed on Mr Sheridan is so worrying.

It’s a condition that I have never heard of before in any cases in Scotland.

• John Scott, QC, is vice-president (crime) in the Society of Solicitor Advocates