Louise Loughlin, Secretary of the Society of Solicitors, Airdrie, claims that the prosecution service in Scotland is taking a "soft touch" approach to justice and states that there has been a reduction by 50% in the amount of summary prosecutions commencing by citation in Airdrie (Letters, June 12).

Citation is one of three ways of commencing a summary prosecution: the accused can be brought before the court in custody, released by the police on undertaking to attend on a fixed date, or cited by the prosecutor to appear on fixed date. The legal effect is the same in all three cases - there is a prosecution. Citation is the most cumbersome of the procedures and the McInnes Committee, which recommended the current reforms, urged greater use of release on undertakings, to get cases into court sooner.

Variations in the size of "cited" courts are not, therefore, an indication of softness by the prosecutors. Looking at all the ways we commence proceedings, in December 2007, we took a decision to prosecute in the summary courts in Airdrie in 383 cases. In May 2008, the figure was 336 cases, a drop of 12% - and very much in line with the expectations for the effects of Summary Justice Reform.

Ms Loughlin also complains about summary prosecution of more serious cases. One of the most important elements of summary justice reform, which the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved, was an unprecedented increase in the summary sentencing powers of sheriffs, increasing their general sentencing powers four-fold from three to 12 months' imprisonment.

The purpose of this increase was to allow more serious cases to be dealt with in the summary courts, recognising that the increased use of direct measures by procurators-fiscal and the new justice of the peace courts would improve the capacity of the sheriff court to deal with more serious summary cases.

It is, therefore, to be expected that procurators-fiscal will make proper use of the sheriff summary court for some cases that would previously have been dealt with by the sheriff sitting with a jury.

I am perplexed by the suggestion that we are moving in an opposite direction to that of England and Wales, where the UK Government has published plans for more prosecutions of 16-18 year olds for carrying knives. Our approach to knife crime is not affected by the recent summary justice reforms in Scotland.

What is now proposed in England and Wales is, subject to differences in procedure and language, very consistent with the robust approach that prosecutors and police in Scotland have been been taking to the menace of knife crime since 2006.

et Cameron, Area Procurator-Fiscal for Lanarkshire, Hamilton

While edified to note a prompt response from Norman McFadyen, the Crown Agent, to the column I wrote (June 9), I was disappointed in the content. First, he highlighted the fact that fiscal fines have been around for 20 years, as if to suggest that somehow nothing has changed. This is patently not true. Under the old system, if an accused failed to respond to an offer of a fiscal fine, the Crown still had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence. Now, if an accused fails to respond, he is deemed guilty. No need for evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, or a judge. The presumption of innocence is automatically removed by default. That is a big change.

Secondly, Mr McFadyen points out this proposal had cross-parliamentary support. I am prepared to give MSPs the benefit of the doubt and assume they had not worked out the consequences of the change.

Thirdly, he states that, in many cases, pleas of guilty are ultimately tendered, as if to suggest an unnecessary process had been gone through. But in many cases, guilty pleas are tendered to lesser charges, people are found guilty of those charges, and very often verdicts of not guilty are returned for other charges on the same complaint.

Fourthly, because fines were ultimately imposed in some cases, he hints that it is better to take a shortcut and save the Crown process. This fails to take into account the deterrent effect on potential reoffenders of appearing before the court, and the fact that victims of crime wish to see the process of law apply to those who have offended against them.

Finally, he states that the diversion policy is not for serious matters. In the time taken for our exchanges, I have already advised a client on a diversion notice where the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is one year imprisonment. This is aggravated by his being on probation, and a prosecution in the traditional manner triggering a second prosecution for breach of probation.

This is justice on the cheap. Is the Crown Office keeping a tally of all the diverted cases in Scotland? More importantly, what percentage results in conviction by inaction and what percentage leads to the accused protecting his innocence by asking to be tried?

Martin Morrow, Solicitor Advocate, Falkirk