Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2015
The bill has indeed—to quote the justice secretary—“had a unique passage”. One point that is worth making at the outset is that, despite a number of controversies, huge swathes of the bill—large parts of the 100 or so sections—have gone through the process without any real change or controversy, and with all parties signing up to them at the first available opportunity.
The sections through which solemn procedure will be improved by facilitation of better preparation of sheriff and jury cases are to be welcomed. Also welcome are the sentencing aspects that have been touched on—in particular, the increase in the maximum sentence for carrying a knife or offensive weapon, and the provisions covering people who offend while on early release—and the appeals section, which addresses delays in determining a number of types of appeal. Those are large parts of the bill that have gone through the process fairly easily, so I am glad to see them go through today.
The biggest controversy—the subject that dominated stage 1—was the section that would have removed the general requirement for corroboration. It was certainly wrong at the time, but criticism of the Government can be levelled mostly because of the fact that, at that time, the Government appeared to be unwilling to listen to expert evidence and to opposition parties. The demeanour of a number of members of the Government and the governing party towards those who opposed them was deeply unwise. I therefore commend the current justice secretary for his very different approach and for, ultimately, deciding to delete that section at stage 2.
The proposal was probably a genuine attempt to address a weakness in the law, but the Justice Committee received weighty submissions that suggested that removing the requirement for corroboration would not increase the number of safe convictions, so it would not solve the problem that the Government wanted it to solve. At the same time, there were credible fears that its removal could lead to an increase in the number of miscarriages of justice. It would not have solved the problem that it was intended to solve and it could have created a new problem.
If the Government decides to reconsider the matter, it ought to be careful, because the complexities of removing the requirement for corroboration are enormous. The Bonomy review made it clear that if we were to do that—it had to assume that it was going to happen—we would need to make at least four changes in respect of suspect interviews, at least three changes in respect of the evidence of identification, three changes in respect of the code of practice, two changes to the prosecutorial test and four changes to the way in which juries operate. Probably most important—even though the review was told to assume that corroboration would no longer exist—is that it made the firm recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be retained in relation to hearsay evidence and confession evidence.
In my final minute, I return to Margaret Mitchell’s amendment 90. Parliament and the Government ultimately rejected the amendment, as is their right, but the Government expressed some sympathy for it. There is a loophole whereby legal aid is not available to complainers who want to oppose applications to access their medical records. I say to the cabinet secretary—who will, I presume, close for the Government—that the Government has expressed sympathy for amendment 90 even though it rejected it. What, therefore, does the Government intend to do to right that injustice? Groups all around the country will be disappointed that the amendment was not agreed to, but they will be extremely keen to hear what the Government intends to do. Perhaps they will hear that in early course.
18:23