Hansard

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 heard from previous speakers, some of whom are legally trained, part 1—which deals with the consequences of sentencing post the Petch and Foye judgment—has been one of the most difficult pieces of legislation to deal with in terms of explaining clearly what has happened and what is required to happen to end the anomaly whereby life prisoners may have parole hearings earlier than non-life prisoners who were convicted of similar offences.

There are, of course, differences of opinion. The Scottish Government believes that the bill shows a clear way forward in calculating the punishment part for non-life sentences, while some witnesses believe that we are faced with an overly complicated system. However, I am sure that no one disagrees with the cabinet secretary that the public must have full confidence in the process of law.

We must have a system that is understandable to everyone who is involved in proceedings in a court of law, and it is vital that those who are involved but not legally trained—such as the accused—are able to understand the sentence that is handed down. Therefore, I am delighted that, in his initial response to the committee report, the cabinet secretary gives a clear indication of routes that accused persons can take to get help with the process.

Of course, the court must also be able to hand down a sentence that is appropriate to the crime that was committed. Judges must take into consideration comparative justice—or, indeed, comparative injustice—when handing down a sentence. That, on top of ECHR legislation, complicates matters.

I am sure that members will be delighted to know that I do not intend to go through the arithmetical permutations that are described in the committee report. Christine Grahame’s tutorial on sentencing was probably enough for all members.

However, the committee had some reservations about the provisions. As has been mentioned, perhaps a less prescriptive approach is required. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s earlier comments on that. Any effort to simplify the process appears to be worth while—a view that the Law Society and others share.

In his written ruling on cutting the punishment part of Morris Petch’s sentence, Lord Osborne said that it might be “some comfort” to those concerned to note that Petch would not necessarily be released after completing eight years. However, the public are rightly outraged by any cut in a convicted sex offender’s sentence. That is even more the case when it is perceived—rightly or wrongly—that the decision is made on a technicality. Of course, if we can end early release, these issues will be so much easier to deal with in and out of court. I therefore commend the cabinet secretary on his efforts to find a speedy solution to this problem, although I believe that some work still needs to be done.

I do not think that there will be anyone in the chamber who does not know that part 2, which deals with the disclosure of information obtained by the SCCRC, is based on the case of Abdelbaset aI-Megrahi. One might argue that, now that events have overtaken us, there is no point in proceeding with this part of the bill but, like the cabinet secretary and Mark McDonald, I have to wonder what would happen if a similar atrocity were to occur on Scottish territory. I certainly support the principle behind part 2, because the bill has cast light on areas hidden in the darkness of secrecy, personal interest and the national interest of various nations. Just in case another case similar to Megrahi’s arises in future, we need to look at the possible data protection issues that Malcolm Chisholm highlighted, which are reserved, and permission to allow the publication of information from individuals, outside agencies and nation states.

Like my colleagues on the Justice Committee, I support the principle of openness whenever possible; indeed, in my opinion, the Megrahi case itself would have benefited from more of it. Of course, that leads us to ask, “What is the public interest?” but that is another question. I believe—and suspect that most people think—that the SCCRC should have been allowed to release the statement of reasons on this case years ago. I also agree with my Justice Committee colleagues that the SCCRC is the appropriate body to deal with the release of such information. It is ludicrous that a version of it was released by a Sunday newspaper and not through official channels; as far as the case of Megrahi is concerned, such a move cannot serve the public interest. However, we are where we are and I believe that, in an effort to discover a clear direction for the process, the bill should proceed.

I suspect that the bill has caused every member of the Justice Committee much frustration, but I agree with the principles behind both parts of it. I have to say that I found witnesses’ written and oral evidence fascinating and, as we have gone through stage 1, it has been amazing to hear the different sides of the argument from both the legal profession and groups such as Justice for Megrahi.

I fully support the principles of the bill and the Justice Committee’s report.

16:22