Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 22 March 2011
22 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill
As my colleague Robert Brown has already indicated, the Liberal Democrats will support the Government’s Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. We are glad to do so.
I associate myself with the comments that others made about Bill Aitken, who was a fine convener of the Justice Committee. I am not sure what he will do when he moves on, but he will clearly have a lot more time to do the things that he wants to do in his private life and to consider other things. I congratulate him on the great job that he did on the Justice Committee.
I also thank Robert Brown, who is one of the best Liberal Democrats in the Parliament. He will be sorely missed by our group if he is not re-elected. I thank him for all the help that he has given me over the past four years in the justice portfolio. As a lawyer, he comes with a slightly different perspective from mine, but his comments and help over the past four years have been welcome.
I also congratulate the rest of the Justice Committee, which has—along with the minister—guided the bill through its various stages and scrutinised it extremely closely. Today is the result of that scrutiny. Between them, the committee and the minister have produced an extremely solid bill.
I also congratulate the committee clerks on the excellent job that they have done, not only during the bill’s progress but over the past four years. We all know that, without our committee clerks, we would struggle seriously, particularly when trying to produce stage 1 reports.
The ministerial team that has guided justice issues over the past four years has also done a good job. Liberal Democrats have perhaps not always agreed with the ministers and perhaps do not agree with them on one or two matters, but justice is without doubt one of the biggest portfolios and to tackle it for four years is a huge job. I wonder whether, when the ministers are re-elected—I am confident that they both will be—they will look for a different portfolio.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids the defendant being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. The rule against double jeopardy is a fundamental principle of Scots law that provides essential protection by preventing the state from procedurally prosecuting an individual twice for the same act.
Double jeopardy has always been extremely complex and often sensitive, so we welcome the bill and the clarification that it provides by setting out in statute the rule against it as part of a modern criminal justice system. Perhaps, when the rule was introduced, the criminal justice system was not quite so modern, but we now have a modern system.
We support the setting out of exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy—for example, when the original trial was tainted by jury tampering or when the acquitted individual has since confessed to the crime.
Perhaps the biggest debate on the bill has been whether a new-evidence exception should be applied retrospectively. That was the most complex issue that the Justice Committee had to deal with. Stewart Maxwell, in his final speech in this session, made a very good case for why that is the right way to go. Our view is that it would be arbitrary and unsatisfactory if acquittals that occurred before a certain date were final while those that occurred after it could be looked at again in the event of new evidence emerging. As my colleague Robert Brown said, in this day and age, given the advances in science in relation to dead bodies, it is only sensible that if solid new evidence, particularly DNA evidence, is found for an existing case, even if the case is old—it could be a considerable number of years old—the case should be brought back in front of the court so that justice is served.
Stewart Maxwell again put his finger on the main issue: victims. Victims will find the bill to be the best way forward. In the cases that we are discussing, a victim would surely want to be satisfied that the perpetrator of the crime, even if it was some years ago, might finally be brought to justice. That would give the victim or victims, or the relations of the victims—perhaps children or grandchildren—closure. I agree with Richard Baker on the point about victims. Retrospectivity is an important aspect of the bill and it is the right way forward for victims.
There has been very little change to the bill between stage 2 and now. The Government lodged a considerable number of stage 2 amendments, which were all agreed by the committee without division. The Liberal Democrats also welcome the amendments that the cabinet secretary lodged for today. As James Kelly and others said, that is perhaps quite unusual at stage 3, but Kenny MacAskill, the cabinet secretary, realised that the amendments were necessary to finalise the bill and make it a really good, solid piece of legislation.
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are firmly behind the bill and will support it at the final decision time of this session.
11:22
I associate myself with the comments that others made about Bill Aitken, who was a fine convener of the Justice Committee. I am not sure what he will do when he moves on, but he will clearly have a lot more time to do the things that he wants to do in his private life and to consider other things. I congratulate him on the great job that he did on the Justice Committee.
I also thank Robert Brown, who is one of the best Liberal Democrats in the Parliament. He will be sorely missed by our group if he is not re-elected. I thank him for all the help that he has given me over the past four years in the justice portfolio. As a lawyer, he comes with a slightly different perspective from mine, but his comments and help over the past four years have been welcome.
I also congratulate the rest of the Justice Committee, which has—along with the minister—guided the bill through its various stages and scrutinised it extremely closely. Today is the result of that scrutiny. Between them, the committee and the minister have produced an extremely solid bill.
I also congratulate the committee clerks on the excellent job that they have done, not only during the bill’s progress but over the past four years. We all know that, without our committee clerks, we would struggle seriously, particularly when trying to produce stage 1 reports.
The ministerial team that has guided justice issues over the past four years has also done a good job. Liberal Democrats have perhaps not always agreed with the ministers and perhaps do not agree with them on one or two matters, but justice is without doubt one of the biggest portfolios and to tackle it for four years is a huge job. I wonder whether, when the ministers are re-elected—I am confident that they both will be—they will look for a different portfolio.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids the defendant being tried again on the same or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. The rule against double jeopardy is a fundamental principle of Scots law that provides essential protection by preventing the state from procedurally prosecuting an individual twice for the same act.
Double jeopardy has always been extremely complex and often sensitive, so we welcome the bill and the clarification that it provides by setting out in statute the rule against it as part of a modern criminal justice system. Perhaps, when the rule was introduced, the criminal justice system was not quite so modern, but we now have a modern system.
We support the setting out of exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy—for example, when the original trial was tainted by jury tampering or when the acquitted individual has since confessed to the crime.
Perhaps the biggest debate on the bill has been whether a new-evidence exception should be applied retrospectively. That was the most complex issue that the Justice Committee had to deal with. Stewart Maxwell, in his final speech in this session, made a very good case for why that is the right way to go. Our view is that it would be arbitrary and unsatisfactory if acquittals that occurred before a certain date were final while those that occurred after it could be looked at again in the event of new evidence emerging. As my colleague Robert Brown said, in this day and age, given the advances in science in relation to dead bodies, it is only sensible that if solid new evidence, particularly DNA evidence, is found for an existing case, even if the case is old—it could be a considerable number of years old—the case should be brought back in front of the court so that justice is served.
Stewart Maxwell again put his finger on the main issue: victims. Victims will find the bill to be the best way forward. In the cases that we are discussing, a victim would surely want to be satisfied that the perpetrator of the crime, even if it was some years ago, might finally be brought to justice. That would give the victim or victims, or the relations of the victims—perhaps children or grandchildren—closure. I agree with Richard Baker on the point about victims. Retrospectivity is an important aspect of the bill and it is the right way forward for victims.
There has been very little change to the bill between stage 2 and now. The Government lodged a considerable number of stage 2 amendments, which were all agreed by the committee without division. The Liberal Democrats also welcome the amendments that the cabinet secretary lodged for today. As James Kelly and others said, that is perhaps quite unusual at stage 3, but Kenny MacAskill, the cabinet secretary, realised that the amendments were necessary to finalise the bill and make it a really good, solid piece of legislation.
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are firmly behind the bill and will support it at the final decision time of this session.
11:22
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-8156, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill.10:34
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I am pleased that, at the end of the parliamentary session, we will complete what is an important reform. The Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill, the final piec...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
As we enter the final hours before the dissolution of Parliament, I have no doubt that justice issues will be some of the most hotly debated in the weeks ahe...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
SNP
I was just going to say that you can carry on, Mr Baker.
Richard Baker
Lab
Oh, really? Such largesse, Deputy Presiding Officer—you are obviously demob happy. We wish you well. I for one very much valued your convenership of the Ente...
John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Con
Like others, I am very pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate on the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. It has taken us some time to get to this point, but I ...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I am glad to open for the Liberal Democrats in the last justice debate, the last stage 3 debate and the last substantive debate of the parliamentary session....
Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I thank in particular the Justice Committee clerks for their assistance, advice and support on the bill and over the past four years. I have been a committee...
Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Lab
Presiding Officer, thank you for allowing me the privilege of speaking in the last debate in this session. I thank the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for ...
Richard Baker
Lab
Bill Aitken.
Cathie Craigie
Lab
What did I say?Members: Bill Butler.
Cathie Craigie
Lab
Oh, goodness. That’s Bill Butler got a promotion, although maybe he does not want it.As convener, Bill Aitken has always dealt fairly with the committee’s pr...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I am in my characteristic position as the final back-bench speaker—a sort of tail gunner—so I must repeat one or two things, although that is not something t...
Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD)
LD
As my colleague Robert Brown has already indicated, the Liberal Democrats will support the Government’s Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. We are glad to do so...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con)
Con
It is appropriate that the final debate in this session should deal with an important legal principle. The principle of the rule against double jeopardy has ...
James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to close the stage 3 debate on the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Labour Party.It is difficult to follow such a s...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
This has been a remarkably consensual debate, as it should have been for two reasons: first, because it has dealt with the final bill that the Parliament wil...