Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016
The member may have misheard the point that I made. It was about research into how people react during a sexual offence or after such an offence has been committed. It did not relate to the issue that the member raised.
There is discretion for the judge as to whether a jury direction is needed. If, say, no issues are raised at trial relating to a delay in the reporting of a sexual offence, the jury direction is not required. Even where an issue relating to delay may have been heard in evidence, the judge does not have to give the direction if they consider that no reasonable jury would think that the issue of delay was material to whether the offence had been committed. The bill also provides for judicial discretion and flexibility to ensure that jury directions are required only where they are relevant to the case.
The new intimate images offence is designed to respond to concerns that, with advances in technology, the sharing of private intimate images without consent has become far more widespread in recent years. Such behaviour is unacceptable. Although we know that a number of existing laws can—in certain circumstances—be used to hold perpetrators to account, we consider that reform of the criminal law is needed. A specific offence is justified, and this offence will ensure that victims and perpetrators alike understand that this behaviour is criminal; that it is easier for law enforcement agencies to take action; and that, in future, it will be clearer that someone has committed such behaviour because a conviction for the specific intimate images offence will be recorded on their criminal record, rather than a more general offence. We agree with the views that have been expressed indicating that raised awareness and education about the dangers of inappropriate use of new technologies is important, especially among young people.
The introduction of a specific domestic abuse aggravator will ensure that, when sentencing, courts always give consideration to the fact that an offence is associated with domestic abuse. It will also improve the recording of such offences. The changes allowing for Scottish courts to hear certain child sexual offence cases that took place elsewhere in the United Kingdom will ensure that there is no hiding place for perpetrators.
We note that the stage 1 report indicates that the committee was not convinced of the benefits of the non-harassment order provisions. We consider that the small but important change in the bill to how criminal non-harassment orders operate will make it easier for protection to be put in place for victims of harassment. It will do so by allowing for a speedy response from the police to protect victims.
The final area of the bill relates to the use of civil orders to protect communities from sexual harm. The bill introduces sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. The primary purpose of those orders is the prevention of sexual harm. The reforms to the existing civil order regime will provide increased protection for adults and children from those who may commit sexual offences. Police Scotland is supportive of the reforms. Its clear view is that it would rather prevent a sexual crime than investigate and convict someone for that crime. We absolutely agree that these reforms will help with that aim.
It is appropriate that, as with the current system, there should be safeguards in place. Those safeguards include a measure stating that the independent court has to be satisfied that the civil orders are proportionate and necessary, and that an individual can appeal against the making or varying of an order. In addition, the Scottish Government’s policy intent is that the individual should be able to make oral representations to the court before an order is imposed. We are considering whether a small change at stage 2 is required to put that matter beyond doubt.