Luke was remanded on April 14th 2004 and has not left prison since. He was 15 years, 8.5 months old.
Under Scots Law, he should have been tried within 110 days of being remanded, so July 28th, just a few days after he turned 16 and could be tried as an adult. The law was clear - if he was not brought to trial within 100 days, he would be free forever from the charge.
In the event, he was not brought to trial until 25th November - 225 days after he was remanded (the first trial had to be halted and re-started a few days later) - double the amount of time the law, itself, said it had to bring him to trial.
Just another one of those "little" changes of the rules in this case. The state had had 9.5 months to build its case against Luke - in late September 2003, a police spokesperson was quoted as saying the police had "as much evidence as they were likely to get" - why, then, did it take them another 7.5 months to make an arrest?
If they had "enough evidence," that means they were willing to allow someone they clearly thought they could "prove" was a vicious murderer to remain in the community for all that time, without any apparent reason for doing so. Except that, if they'd arrested him any earlier, he wouldn't have turned 16 and he couldn't have been tried as an adult.