Criminal Justice Committee 11 June 2025
My amendments 41 and 43 are both relevant to section 2, which deals with virtual attendance at court. When we look at what section 2 does, we need to ask whether, as drafted, it covers all necessary matters. On page 6 of the bill, proposed new section 303K of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 addresses the ability to attend by electronic means. That section states that someone who is excused from a requirement to physically attend court must do so by electronic means
“in accordance with a direction issued by the court.”
Proposed new section 303K(3) sets out what that direction should include. My amendment 41 simply asks that one part of that direction is
“to set out the location of where the person is to appear by electronic means”.
That reflects concerns that were raised in the committee’s report, which said:
“We recommend that the Bill is amended to include an additional requirement for the court to issue a direction in relation to the appropriateness of the location from which an individual participates, to address the concerns highlighted in evidence.”
It is, of course, entirely at the court’s discretion to determine what and where that location might be, and it would naturally take into account all the facts of the case.
On a practical level, I presume that that would be done only after consultation with the person concerned on the appropriateness of the locations that were available to them.
I move to amendment 43. Virtual attendance will be a pretty new concept to us, so the question is whether it will work. I think that it will, but there is a much remarked-on dearth of data and outputs in this Parliament generally. I seek to remedy that in amendment 43, at least at this level, because I am seeking to insert a new section—after section 2—to require a report on how the virtual attendance is working. The report would cover various elements such as reliability and resourcing, and I would like it to be published no later than two years after section 2 comes into force.
Again, that is in line with concerns that witnesses raised with the committee about virtual appearances being dependent on proper resourcing and current issues with technology. I remind the committee that the sheriffs principal told us:
“We would observe that virtual hearings are heavily dependent on the adequate resourcing of technology and infrastructure.”
The Faculty of Advocates told us:
“These undoubted and important benefits do come at a cost to the justice system. Valuable court time is regularly lost due to delays in establishing remote links and reestablishing failed remote links.”
That is also in line with a letter that I have received from the chief executive of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, which I can make available to anyone who requests it. I raised questions about the operation of virtual courts, and, in response, it was conceded that
“SCTS does receive feedback that live links are not always as effective as they could be.”
Therefore, my amendment 43 seeks to have a report on what is happening once the measure is brought in.
For completeness, I listened carefully to Pauline McNeill’s representations earlier on. If her amendment 34 goes through, I do not entirely understand how the costs and logistics might work. I will listen carefully to Pauline McNeill’s closing remarks, but, at this stage, I am not persuaded by amendment 34.
Similarly, I am not persuaded by Pauline McNeill’s amendment 37, as I worry about fettering the courts’ discretion and ability to manoeuvre. Again, I will listen carefully to her closing remarks.