Jumping the gun

Sir,

I write with respect to the article with the above title written by John Mayer (Journal, January 2000)), in response to my article in the November edition of the Journal.

Informed critical legal debate is to be encouraged, indeed is the essence of academic and intellectual life within this country.  However it is quite possible to disagree with the position advanced by a person without indulging in a personalised attack.  Mr Mayer has overstepped the bounds in personalising his attack on my article.  In particular when he states “It is just as well that this article was merely the work of one academic, for if it were a real judgment, it would not only be dangerous but also attract deep shame upon the good name of Scottish analysis.”  The inescapable inference from Mr Mayer’s statement is that my work reflects deep shame upon the good name of Scottish legal analysis.  This constitutes a clear, unequivocal, defamatory attack on my professional reputation.

Mr Mayer continues in a personalised vein but I am willing to characterise such statements as “The proverbial schoolboys knew.” and those contained in the penultimate sentence as “petty” and demeaning of the author.  They do, however, point up the personalised nature of Mr Mayer’s attack on me.

Professor Rebecca Wallace

The Journal printed Mr Mayer’s article as part of the continuing debate on the interesting and important topics raised by Professor Wallace in her article in our November edition.  As Advocate for one of the accused, Mr Mayer clearly holds strong views on the issues raised in the case.  Professor Wallace clearly regards part of the article as an attack on her academic professionalism.  The Journal did not intend that the article be so interpreted and regrets that it was seen in that light.  The Journal may re-visit this matter when the High Court delivers an Opinion on the Reference lodged by the Lord Advocate.  The current debate is now completed.

Editor