Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 April 2012
19 Apr 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Where Malcolm Chisholm leads, I will boldly follow, as another non-member of the Justice Committee entering bravely into the fray. Never has the old quotation, “Laws are like sausages—it is better not to see them being made”, which is often attributed to Otto von Bismarck, been more apt.
The bill is a complex one that deals with complex issues. Christine Grahame, David McLetchie and Rod Campbell, who, unlike me, are all qualified legal professionals, have identified how difficult a bill it is. As a mere layman, I must be perfectly frank and admit that I have found a deal of the process and the technical content of part 1 extremely difficult to comprehend, and I am sure that many people on the street would do so, too.
The litmus test of any bill of this Parliament is not whether it makes for easy bedtime reading but whether it will deliver outcomes that are of benefit to wider Scottish society. That is the test that we must apply to any bill that is introduced. I do not think that it is unreasonable that the bill includes extremely complex and technical elements, given that it seeks to resolve a complex legal technicality. The question is whether, in passing the bill, we would deliver benefits. It is through that prism that I will view the bill. I want to assess whether it will have a beneficial impact for society as a whole.
Graeme Pearson rightly identified that, in that regard, a key consideration must be ensuring that victims, families of victims and witnesses understand the bill and benefit from it. In its response to paragraph 95 of the committee’s report, the Scottish Government states:
“We are keen to explore with stakeholders, in the context of developing a Victims and Witnesses Bill, whether further steps could be taken ... to enhance the ability of victims and witnesses to better understand the practical effect of decisions made.”
That is very much a live issue for the Government. It is clear that it is keen to ensure that victims, witnesses and, where appropriate, relatives of victims have an understanding of the process and how it affects them, and what the outcomes of it are likely to be. We should not expect such people to be legal experts, although many of them acquire a good understanding of the legal process as they go through the system. As someone who has spoken to a number of relatives of victims and witnesses, I know that they develop quite a strong understanding of the legal system as a result of their experiences and their exposure to it. As well as accepting the need for such people to understand the legal system, we should not dismiss the fact that many of them develop an acute understanding of how it works.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, although the two sections in part 1 of the bill have, in effect, been christened with the names of the cases that gave rise to their being necessary, those cases are not the only ones to which those two sections do or could apply. The cabinet secretary has identified that only a small number of cases that are in the system at the moment would fall into that category, but it is worth remembering that the cases in question are very serious criminal cases that give rise to significant public safety concerns. It is therefore important that any anomalies in the judicial process and the sentencing system are dealt with to ensure that cases like Petch and Foye do not arise in future.
It has been suggested that there should be a wider review of sentencing. The obvious drawback in that is that a quick fix might be required for a situation like that in the Petch and Foye cases. By definition, a wider review of sentencing would take a longer time and the length of time taken could mean that further anomalies would not be prevented. It was therefore perfectly appropriate for the Government to introduce the bill, particularly part 1, as a fix that is required for very serious criminal cases.
Part 2 was clearly driven by the al-Megrahi case, but we cannot rule out the possibility—however remote—that a similar case or another case with similar connotations will arise in future. It is entirely appropriate for the Government to put in place provisions that will allow some of the difficulties that were faced during the process of the al-Megrahi case to be ironed out so that they will not be an issue in future cases.
I support the bill’s general principles. I merely observe that, although I do not possess my colleague Mr Finnie’s understanding of part 1, which he referred to as “the easy bit”, we will take up Mr Pearson’s suggestion—I have offered to draw the pictures for Mr Finnie’s book.
16:11
The bill is a complex one that deals with complex issues. Christine Grahame, David McLetchie and Rod Campbell, who, unlike me, are all qualified legal professionals, have identified how difficult a bill it is. As a mere layman, I must be perfectly frank and admit that I have found a deal of the process and the technical content of part 1 extremely difficult to comprehend, and I am sure that many people on the street would do so, too.
The litmus test of any bill of this Parliament is not whether it makes for easy bedtime reading but whether it will deliver outcomes that are of benefit to wider Scottish society. That is the test that we must apply to any bill that is introduced. I do not think that it is unreasonable that the bill includes extremely complex and technical elements, given that it seeks to resolve a complex legal technicality. The question is whether, in passing the bill, we would deliver benefits. It is through that prism that I will view the bill. I want to assess whether it will have a beneficial impact for society as a whole.
Graeme Pearson rightly identified that, in that regard, a key consideration must be ensuring that victims, families of victims and witnesses understand the bill and benefit from it. In its response to paragraph 95 of the committee’s report, the Scottish Government states:
“We are keen to explore with stakeholders, in the context of developing a Victims and Witnesses Bill, whether further steps could be taken ... to enhance the ability of victims and witnesses to better understand the practical effect of decisions made.”
That is very much a live issue for the Government. It is clear that it is keen to ensure that victims, witnesses and, where appropriate, relatives of victims have an understanding of the process and how it affects them, and what the outcomes of it are likely to be. We should not expect such people to be legal experts, although many of them acquire a good understanding of the legal process as they go through the system. As someone who has spoken to a number of relatives of victims and witnesses, I know that they develop quite a strong understanding of the legal system as a result of their experiences and their exposure to it. As well as accepting the need for such people to understand the legal system, we should not dismiss the fact that many of them develop an acute understanding of how it works.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, although the two sections in part 1 of the bill have, in effect, been christened with the names of the cases that gave rise to their being necessary, those cases are not the only ones to which those two sections do or could apply. The cabinet secretary has identified that only a small number of cases that are in the system at the moment would fall into that category, but it is worth remembering that the cases in question are very serious criminal cases that give rise to significant public safety concerns. It is therefore important that any anomalies in the judicial process and the sentencing system are dealt with to ensure that cases like Petch and Foye do not arise in future.
It has been suggested that there should be a wider review of sentencing. The obvious drawback in that is that a quick fix might be required for a situation like that in the Petch and Foye cases. By definition, a wider review of sentencing would take a longer time and the length of time taken could mean that further anomalies would not be prevented. It was therefore perfectly appropriate for the Government to introduce the bill, particularly part 1, as a fix that is required for very serious criminal cases.
Part 2 was clearly driven by the al-Megrahi case, but we cannot rule out the possibility—however remote—that a similar case or another case with similar connotations will arise in future. It is entirely appropriate for the Government to put in place provisions that will allow some of the difficulties that were faced during the process of the al-Megrahi case to be ironed out so that they will not be an issue in future cases.
I support the bill’s general principles. I merely observe that, although I do not possess my colleague Mr Finnie’s understanding of part 1, which he referred to as “the easy bit”, we will take up Mr Pearson’s suggestion—I have offered to draw the pictures for Mr Finnie’s book.
16:11
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02617, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill.I wi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
It would appear that we have a problem with Mr MacAskill’s card. Can we do something about the sound? Interruption. Thank you.I call Mr MacAskill to speak to...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.I thank the Justice Committee for its careful stage 1 scrutiny of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s view on whether a less complex approach could have been taken had the bill been a bit more ambitious in scope. In ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
That is not the case. There are two separate matters. The Petch and Foye judgment caused considerable concern and was commented on not only by me but by just...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary accept that it would have been helpful to have consulted the information commissioner at a much earlier stage in order to resolve ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
It was not up to us to consult the information commissioner, because these matters have to be dealt with by the SCCRC. We have always sought to facilitate ev...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I call Christine Grahame to speak to the motion on behalf of the Justice Committee.15:11
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee—at least, that is what it says here. I thank all those who gave evidence to t...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Alongside other committee members who are present, I had the opportunity to scrutinise the bill closely as it passed through the Justice Committee. I want to...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Does the member accept that part 2 of the bill has a wider application than just Mr al-Megrahi’s case?
Jenny Marra
Lab
John Finnie may, like me, hope that part 2 will have a wider implication in future, although it is difficult to predict when that might be. However, we will ...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
As other members have done, I speak as a member of the Justice Committee, which has had responsibility for scrutinising the bill, the first part of which was...
John Finnie
SNP
Does the member accept that the Government’s position remains that the manifesto commitment will be implemented once the terms of the McLeish commission are ...
David McLetchie
Con
Yes—I accept that that is the position, but that is a cover-up for not implementing anything, as Mr Finnie will realise, the longer he serves in this Parliam...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
I will concentrate on part 1 of the bill—the easy bit. We know that part 1 resulted from the much-talked-about Petch and Foye case. As we have heard, part 1 ...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I note John Finnie’s light touch in describing part 1 as “the easy bit”. On that basis, I look forward to his forthcoming book, “A Treatise on Scots Law”, be...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. One of the advantages of the recess is that it enables one ...
Humza Yousaf (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
As a member of the Justice Committee, I, too, thank everybody who came forward and gave evidence on the bill.There is a constant underlying theme in the deba...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
Hear, hear.
Humza Yousaf
SNP
Thank you. However, luckily, my wife studied law, which was very helpful to me. I have sympathy for Alison McInnes and for Colin Keir—who has disappeared fro...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Presiding Officer, I think that I deserve full marks for bravery as the first non-member of the Justice Committee to venture into these choppy waters without...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Where Malcolm Chisholm leads, I will boldly follow, as another non-member of the Justice Committee entering bravely into the fray. Never has the old quotatio...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill is needed to remedy the judgment handed down in Petch and Foye v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The bill ...
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
Over the past year, members of the Justice Committee have been faced with some complex material to digest in the course of their deliberations.As we have hea...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
Like other committee members, I am grateful to everyone who submitted evidence on the bill, because they certainly helped us to get to grips with an extremel...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
When I was given the task of being a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I never thought that I would be grateful for that...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I have to say that I confused myself. John Green is an intruder.
Dennis Robertson
SNP
I thought that it was males who had the problem with reds and greens.The matter that we are debating is very serious, and it needs to be resolved. I congratu...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
That brings us to closing speeches. I remind members who were in the chamber for the debate that they should be here for closing speeches.I have a little bit...