THERE will undoubtedly have been many people deeply shocked yesterday to learn that the Crown Office is apparently considering the possibility that Professor Clara Ponsati of St Andrews University could be extradited to Spain under a centuries-old law on treason.
Let me first of all express my sincere sympathy to the Crown Office and our excellent Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC. Under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system, they have no choice but to prosecute the case against former Catalan education minister Ponsati to the best of their ability.
READ MORE: Follow UK lead on Scotland’s independence referendum, Torra urges Spain
READ MORE: Catalan president Quim Torra to meet Nicola Sturgeon and Clara Ponsati in Scotland
Under the EAW, the Spanish authorities must hand over the case to the Crown Office, specifying what are the charges are against the professor. Those charges must be offences under Scots law, or the extradition attempt falls at the first hurdle.
Spain has alleged that Ponsati is guilty of rebellion, or what used to be known in this country as sedition – abolished as an offence in Scotland in 2010.
The problem of history in this matter is a real one which reflects very badly on successive governments in Westminster. For as it stands, seemingly the only way that Professor Ponsati could be expedited is due to English laws dating back to 1351 and the reign of Edward III.
Prior to the Act of Union, Scotland and England had very different laws in treason.
But in 1708, the nascent British Parliament passed a new Treason Act which wholly adopted the English treason law for the whole of this island. Since then, the various treason acts passed at Westminster have all derived from that original 1351 law, especially the Treason Felony Act of 1848 which specifies the offence of “levying war in the realm”. So why doesn’t the Scottish Government not just pass an Act ending the treason laws? Treason remains a reserved matter for Westminster. that’s why.
Is the Crown Office really going to court at the end of this month to argue that the professor is guilty of an offence under the 1848 Act that ultimately derives from 14th century English law? Apparently so.
All of a sudden, the case of Clara Ponsati has much greater significance for those who think that the Scottish people and its courts are sovereign. For if Professor Ponsati is extradited from Scotland thanks to a law from the time of Edward III of England, it would be a vile travesty of Scottish justice.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel