Committee
Justice Committee 13 April 2010
13 Apr 2010 · S3 · Justice Committee
Item of business
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Rhoda Grant
Watch on SPTV
A non-harassment order is an order that gives a victim protection from further abuse. The order comes with powers of arrest, and breach of the order is a criminal offence. The purpose of amendments 5 to 7 is to place it beyond doubt that evidence of a course of conduct is not required before a criminal court can grant a non-harassment order. For a course of conduct to be shown, there must be a conviction, which requires there to have been conduct on at least two occasions that has caused harassment. Currently, a procurator fiscal can apply for a non-harassment order where the accused has been convicted of an offence or offences involving a course of conduct of harassment. However, normally the prosecution focuses on one incident of criminal behaviour, which means that it is unlikely that the conviction will amount to a course of conduct.In the case of domestic violence, getting evidence of one incident is difficult, because the behaviour tends to occur away from witnesses and is difficult to corroborate. Victims may also try to hide their abuse, as they feel shame and a degree of responsibility for what has happened to them. For that reason, victims seldom make complaints. However, when a victim provides the authorities with proof of their abuse, it is important that protection from future abuse is provided.The bill seeks to address the issue by proposing that previous convictions may be taken into account to prove the course of conduct that is needed to secure a non-harassment order. The policy memorandum states that the Government’s aim is that evidence of a course of a conduct should not be required. However, I fear that that is not made clear in the bill and that a victim may still have to wait until their abuser has been successfully convicted of more than one offence before the prosecutor can seek a protection order on their behalf.As the purpose of a non-harassment order is to protect a victim against future abuse, one incident should be sufficient for us to consider whether there is a risk of future harm. A victim should not be abused twice before the state steps in to protect them. My amendments make it clear that a non-harassment order should be granted after one conviction for a single offence.I move amendment 5.
In the same item of business
The Convener
Item 2 is day 3 of stage 2 proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. The committee will not proceed beyond the end of part 3 today; ...
The Convener
Amendment 399, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 400 to 402, 402A, 378 and 544.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to Ann Moulds, her group Action Scotland Against Stalking and their vigorous campaign to highlight the problem of stalking in Scotland, ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
Amendment 402 is intended to create a statutory offence of stalking. It would make it an offence for a person to engage in a course of conduct with the inten...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
In this group, amendments 402A and 544 are in my name. As Rhoda Grant and the cabinet secretary have indicated, the group raises a number of overlapping issu...
Stewart Maxwell
I entirely agree with Robert Brown’s comments on amendment 400 and the role of the Crown Office, so I will not repeat his arguments. In relation to amendment...
James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments. She has put her case well and I pay tribute to her for the amount of work that she has done to get the amendments to this...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP)
I will briefly address amendment 378. As James Kelly noted, we have received several submissions on the issue. I do not buy them lock, stock and barrel, but ...
The Convener
The series of amendments that Rhoda Grant, the Government and Robert Brown have lodged seeks to build on the protection that is given—largely to women—under ...
Rhoda Grant
I have listened carefully to what committee members and the cabinet secretary have said. On reflection, given the concerns about amendments 399, 400 and 401,...
The Convener
I should have given the cabinet secretary another bite at the cherry. Do you have anything to say?
Kenny MacAskill
I have listened to the committee’s comments, and I think that Stewart Maxwell’s suggestion is appropriate. We understand the committee’s desire to address th...
The Convener
That is a constructive contribution.Amendment 399, by agreement, withdrawn.Amendments 400 and 401 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 5, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.
Rhoda Grant
A non-harassment order is an order that gives a victim protection from further abuse. The order comes with powers of arrest, and breach of the order is a cri...
Kenny MacAskill
We fully understand Rhoda Grant’s sentiments. However, section 15 already provides that a non-harassment order may be made after a conviction for a single of...
The Convener
Amendment 5 is entirely meritorious, but I question its necessity, given the other provisions in the bill.
Rhoda Grant
I seek leave to withdraw amendment 5, as the cabinet secretary has given the reassurance that I sought. He has indicated that evidence of a course of conduct...
The Convener
Amendment 100, in the name of Robert Brown, is grouped with amendments 101, 388, 1, 392 and 393.
Robert Brown
Section 17 is one of the most important sections in the bill. I will deal with it at two levels: the principle and the practicalities. In principle, the poli...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab)
The proposal for a legislative presumption against custodial sentences of six months and under has been a focus for debate. My amendment 1 seeks to give effe...
Angela Constance (Livingston) (SNP)
I cannot support the detail of Robert Brown’s amendments 100 and 101, but I support in principle his logic in eloquently arguing against short-term sentences...
James Kelly
I support amendment 1 and oppose amendments 100, 101 and 388.One of the arguments that is used by those who argue for a presumption against short-term senten...
Kenny MacAskill
The presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less has been the subject of some debate and attacks by parts of the Opposition. We do not doubt...
The Convener
I call Robert Brown to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 100.
Robert Brown
I am bound to say that there has not exactly been a meeting of minds in the debate. I am somewhat disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response to what we...
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.ForBrown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)AgainstAitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)Constance, Angela (Livingst...
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.Amendment 100 disagreed to.Amendment 101 not moved.Amendment 388 moved—Robert Brown.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 388 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.