Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 27 February 2014

27 Feb 2014 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Mitchell, Margaret Con Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

I thank the numerous witnesses who gave evidence and the Justice Committee clerks for their work in helping committee members to compile the stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. I also pay tribute to the convener of the committee and my fellow committee members for their efforts and for the spirit in which that powerful and compelling report was produced.

The bill will implement recommendations that were made in two separate expert reviews: those from Sheriff Principal Bowen, on sheriff and jury procedure, and those from Lord Carloway, on criminal law and practice. The Carloway review was set up in the wake of the Cadder case, which resulted in the provision that suspects have the right to legal representation when they are detained for questioning by the police.

Part 3 of the bill, on solemn procedure, was welcomed by the committee. It includes the proposal to introduce meetings between prosecutors and the defence and others to reduce unnecessary delays in criminal trials.

Part 1 contains provisions on arrest and custody. In attempting to simplify powers of arrest, there is a real danger that the proposed changes have instead done little more than confuse the situation. For example, at present the general public realise that, when a suspect has been detained for questioning, they have not been charged, and the presumption of innocence is still very much evident. I believe that, by changing the term to “arrest”, the public perception will be that the person is, to use the cabinet secretary’s phraseology, “officially accused”.

Indeed, the cabinet secretary’s response to the report and the introduction of terms such as “officially accused” and “not officially accused” do little to allay those fears. In giving evidence, the cabinet secretary also introduced the somewhat unhelpful term “de-arrest”, and said that he would bring forward a provision on that in an amendment at stage 2. I am glad that he has decided to drop that rather ridiculous wording.

The cabinet secretary’s deafness to the justified concerns about part 2 of the bill and the provision in section 57 to abolish the general requirement for corroboration has caused a storm of controversy. He has consistently attempted to misrepresent and polarise the debate, with victims on one side and the legal profession on the other. That is not only a complete distortion; it insults all those who oppose that move, including those who signed my amendment.

I do not doubt the cabinet secretary’s concern for victims; equally, I do not doubt the concern of leading judges, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. All those organisations oppose section 57 not because they have an axe to grind but because they do not believe that it would be in the interests of the criminal justice system or victims of crime.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 27 February 2014

In the same item of business