Meeting of the Parliament 08 December 2015
The final words of the introductory music to the Scandinavian crime noir, “The Bridge”, which is currently showing on BBC Four, are:
“everything goes back to the beginning.”
If we go back to the beginning of this process, we find a bill that sought to build on the Carloway report. Part 1 of the bill tackles the somewhat confusing statutory issues of detention and arrest, and Lord Carloway sought to create a modern approach to powers of arrest that initially confused the members of the Justice Committee. However, we finally got to grips with it, and that part of the bill now contains important provisions for suspects to have a right to legal advice at police stations. Rather importantly, it will also provide for the removal of legal aid contributions for that advice.
We touched earlier on issues relating to the length of time for which suspects can be held for questioning. We have indeed gone further than Lord Carloway recommended in his report. In our committee there were differing views, but in my view the position that we have now agreed strikes a reasonable balance. I say to Alison McInnes that I hope that the use of the powers to extend beyond 12 hours interrogation in the investigation of crimes involving children will indeed be very limited. Investigative liberation was recommended by Lord Carloway. It is a somewhat ungainly term for a new system of continuing an investigation. I suspect that it will quickly come to be used and the 28-day maximum period seems to be a reasonable balance.
Issues in relation to child and other vulnerable suspects occupied the committee for quite some time. There were understandable concerns about a proper balance between the right to investigate crime and the rights of children and vulnerable people. Whatever else, we must hope that the safeguards that are provided by the legislation are properly adhered to. While child impact assessments were a controversial amendment at stage 2, I am glad to hear that discussions between the Government, Mary Fee and children’s organisations have borne fruit and we were able to agree the amendments earlier this afternoon.
No discussion of the bill would be complete without referring to the C-word: corroboration. Lord Carloway’s initial recommendation to abolish the requirement for corroboration was and remains controversial. It evoked strong emotions from the committee members, in the chamber and throughout civic Scotland. The problem remains as to how to create a system that balances the rights of the accused with the victim’s rights and access to justice. That conundrum will remain for the new parliamentary session and we await the results of the further work that was carried out following Lord Bonomy’s recommendations. In particular, what will the results of jury research reveal? Will it impact on the views on jury majorities, for example? We are, however, embarking on the publication of a prosecutorial test and a code of practice in connection with the identification and interviewing of suspects.
The current cabinet secretary responded quickly to concerns about consensual stop and search. We were perhaps slow to follow the example of our southern neighbours in putting these matters on a formal basis, but they operate it in a slightly different culture. I am also mindful of the former First Minister’s earlier comments about knife crime. I do not quite understand the current position with regard to section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, under which, when there is a reasonable belief that persons are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons, the police can organise a search. That is to be covered by the code of practice; we await that with interest.
We also debated provisions for children’s possession of alcohol and consensual searching. Now that the Parliament has voted on that, we need to move on and accept the cabinet secretary’s assurances. We should also remember that the bill contains recommendations on sheriff and jury cases from Sheriff Bowen. They might be dry but they are nevertheless important.