Officials who decided not to proceed with criminal charges against Hamilton - despite police fears - look set to escape a grilling at the Cullen Inquiry into the school massacre. LINK

Danger

The Crown Office is insisting the decisions taken by the Procurators Fiscals' offices cannot be scrutinised in public. LINK  Police reports on Hamilton in 1988 and 1991 suggested he was a danger - but failed to prompt charges.

And a request for a warrant to search Hamilton's home was rejected by the Procurator Fiscal's office in Stirling in 1993.

But Lord Cullen's inquiry yesterday was told legal precedent suggested public prosecutors should not have to explain their decisions at a later date.

Crown counsel Iain Bonomy interrupted cross examination of a police officer whose request to the fiscal for a warrant was turned down.

Detective Sergeant Gordon Taylor went to the fiscal while investigating a complaint from a parent that Hamilton had taken photographs of her son in a "questionable" position.

Scrutiny

Mr Bonomy said it was "quite wrong" for witnesses to be asked what they thought was in the mind of a fiscal when taking such a decision.

"It's a matter of law the decisions of a procurator fiscal are not subject to scrutiny by a court of law or any other tribunal in Scotland."

But a parents' group, campaigning for gun laws to be changed, said the public had a right to know why action was not taken.

Anne Pearston of the Dunblane Snowdrop Petition, said: "People sitting in the public gallery have expected all along that all of the decisions will be fully investigated."

She added: "The murder of 16 children should mean that nobody involved is above explaining their reasons for what they did."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said no decision had been taken about whether fiscals would give evidence. LINK