Comments reported on the Firm's website yesterday from Sara Matheson of the Glasgow Bar Association, who said that fiscal penalties for sex offences left her "horrified", have drawn an angry response from the Crown Office.

Speaking of a case where a sex offender was let off with a fine Mathieson had said: "I am horrified. The ultimate fear is Scotland becaomes a place where crime isn't taken seriously and offenders are attracted here because they can do things here and not be punished.

"The legal profession is very concerned about the public not being protected. It is not helping society and it is not helping offenders. It is purely driven by budgetary considerations."

In repsonse, the Crown Office have taken the unusual step of releasing a statement outlining their objections to the media reports.

"Fiscal fines are part of a package of Direct Measures which enable Fiscals to offer accused persons in minor cases the opportunity to accept a penalty or other alternative to prosecution," the statement said.

"Fiscal fines are intended to deal with cases which would otherwise have clogged up the courts and would have been expected to result in a fine. Our guidance to fiscals makes it quite clear that they must not be issued where there is a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour and, in particular, where it is likely or desirable that the accused will be placed on the Sex Offenders' Register. Equally, there is no question of fiscal fines being issued in relation to assaults resulting in anything more than minor injury.

"Serious cases, such as rape, are not affected in any way by summary justice reform and continue to be given the greatest priority by the prosecution service. A person who has been arrested for rape will only be liberated without charge by the fiscal where there is insufficient evidence to hold him."

"It makes perfect sense that, wherever possible, such cases should be dealt with out of court, freeing up court time and the time of Procurators Fiscal to deal with more serious cases.