QC Gordon Jackson gets his motoring charge thrown out

Mr Jackson failed to respond to two letters asking him to disclose the driver of a hired car which had been caught speeding on a motorway.

Eventually, the police had to go to his home, and he said he had no idea whether he or his wife had been behind the wheel that day.

Prosecutors took the date of the police visit to calculate the six-month period within which Mr Jackson had to be served with a formal court complaint, alleging he had failed to provide the information asked of him.

However, the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh yesterday decided the clock had started ticking from the date of the first letter, meaning the six months had expired by the time the complaint was served on him.

Mr Jackson was not content with his victory. He did not appear in person for the ruling, but his lawyer asked for the QC's expenses in the case to be met by the Crown. That issue was held over for another hearing at a later date.

In the past, Mr Jackson has been criticised for trying to win money from the public purse by suing a council for 50,000 over a fall on an icy pavement, while he was earning about 240,000 a year in legal aid for his work as one of the country's leading defence counsels, and just under 50,000 as an MSP.

In December 2008, a hire firm responded to a notice from the police about speeding on the M80 near Dunipace, Stirlingshire, by identifying Mr Jackson as the hirer of the vehicle. A letter was sent to him, with "a section 172 form" requiring him to disclose the name of the driver.

A month later, a reminder was sent, but it, too, failed to provoke any response.

On 30 April, 2009, two officers went to Mr Jackson's house, and he said he understood what was required of him, but stated: "I have no recollection of the correspondence.

"I have no idea who was driving at the relevant time and date as my wife and I both drive the car."

A complaint alleging a breach of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act on 30 April at his home was served on Mr Jackson on 23 October, 2009. He challenged it as time-barred, and a stipendiary magistrate at Glasgow Justice of the Peace Court upheld the plea and dismissed the case.

The Crown appealed, and submitted to the appeal court that the six-month statutory period for serving the complaint had started on the date of the police visit to the house, so service of the complaint had been in time.

Lord Osborne, sitting with Lord Reed and Lady Smith, disagreed.

The judges said a written section 172 notice required information to be provided within 28 days."Thus, at the moment of the expiry of the period of 28 days, it appears to us that the offence is committed, if the requirement is not obtempered (obeyed]," said Lord Osborne.

He said the Crown had argued that if a section 172 requirement was made more than once, then the six-month time limit began on the last occasion.

"We cannot accept that submission," added Lord Osborne.

The judges said that if a written notice was ignored and had to be followed up by a personal visit by the police, it should be remembered by the Crown that the six-month period to bring a prosecution would still have started to run in relation to the letter.

Two jobs, three nicknames:

Just turned 62 and after more than 30 years an advocate, Gordon Jackson is an instantly recognised face around Scotland's courts.

He also became well known outside court when he decided to combine a legal career with politics. However, his time in Holyrood, from 1999 to 2007, was not without its difficulties.

While he retained the affectionate nickname "Wacko" in his wig and gown, he was "Two Jobs" and "Crackerjack" to some political opponents. The first, clearly, was applied in distaste at his earning large sums as a lawyer while representing the people of Glasgow Govan in Parliament. The second, after the children's television programme that started at five to five, was given to Jackson for repeatedly arriving in Parliament just before the 5pm vote.