Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 27 April 2010

27 Apr 2010 · S3 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab) Watch on SPTV

As this is my final amendment at stage 2, I thank the clerks for all their assistance during the process.The convener has alluded to the fact that the issues around the age of prosecution and the age of criminal responsibility are sensitive and difficult. We know that, unfortunately, even children can commit terrible offences. The question is, how can our justice system and our children’s hearings system deal most effectively with those situations? I do not demur for a second from Robert Brown’s point that such situations are highly unusual.The argument has been well established that nothing can be gained from having children as young as eight tried in adult courts and that that is inappropriate. However, there may be some concern that changing the age of prosecution to 12 means that it will not be possible to deal effectively with the cases—however rare—of children who commit very serious offences. As a result, there may be concerns about public safety. We should be able to be confident that, regardless of whether those children are dealt with by the court or by the children’s hearings system, the outcome is likely to be the same or very similar, rendering a trial in an adult court unnecessary.10:15 Given that that means that we may hand more serious cases to the children’s hearings system and that Parliament is yet to consider the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill, I have lodged amendment 389, which seeks to establish how cases that would otherwise have been prosecuted have been disposed of through the children’s hearings system, and the costs and resources involved. That would be done through a report, published annually, for three years.The purpose of the measure is to establish that cases that would previously have been prosecuted can be dealt with effectively through the children’s hearings system, that the system has access to appropriate disposals, after the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill has been passed, and that panels are adequately resourced to deal with the most serious cases. I understand that that will create some work, but I have changed my amendment from the original proposal so that it involves only those cases that would otherwise have been prosecuted. As Robert Brown said, we know that very few cases should be involved. For that reason, I hope that the measure is eminently achievable.When deciding whether to move the amendment, I will listen to the debate, but it is vital that the Scottish Government is ready to provide such information to Parliament and the committee, if the change is to go ahead. I seek the minister’s view on what the Scottish Government will be prepared to do in that regard.I have sympathy for amendments 126 and 127, in the name of Bill Aitken, because of the unusual nature of cases in which serious offences are committed. I considered lodging an amendment in those terms, but I was persuaded that that would result, in effect, in the law not being changed at all. As the convener said, amendments 126 and 127 place the current situation in statute. Like other colleagues, I have accepted that there should be change in the area.I also have sympathy for amendment 379, in the name of Robert Brown. When the bill was introduced, it might have been better for it to have included a proposal on the age of criminal responsibility, so that that could be properly debated. However, the committee did not discuss such a proposal, although it was referred to in the debate on the age of prosecution.I know from amendment 549 that Robert Brown is enabling the change in the age of criminal responsibility from eight to be delayed until appropriate measures to accommodate that can be taken, but at this stage that is putting the cart before the horse. A note from the Scottish Parliament information centre points out that one consequence of changing the age of criminal responsibility to 12 would be that children under the age of 12 could not be referred to children’s hearings on offence grounds. The committee referred to the suggestion of creating a new non-offence ground, covering situations in which a child has behaved in a way that could be treated as criminal, if they were older. Such a proposal is not before us today.Given where we are, we should not support a change in the age of criminal responsibility now, but we should change the age of prosecution to 12. That is the crucial issue now and the right way forward. I accept that there should be further consideration of the age of criminal responsibility. I do not believe that Parliament should wait too long to engage in such consideration, which should lead to change, but I am inclined to believe that that requires new, detailed proposals and fuller debate.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 27 April 2010

In the same item of business