Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016
I am pleased to speak after Christina McKelvie, as I know that she has campaigned long and hard on the issue, as I have.
I thank the Government for introducing the bill. In doing so, it has recognised the need to keep battling the damage that is done by abusive behaviour and sexual harm. The bill falls short of providing for a new criminal offence of domestic abuse, and I know that campaigners have been concerned by that. However, I consider that the Government is right to have chosen to consult separately on that, which it is doing principally to get the definition right. It is worth taking time to do that. I look forward to a commitment from all parties in Parliament, whatever the outcome of the election, to introduce a bill on a new criminal offence early in the new parliamentary session.
The bill introduces a domestic abuse aggravator, which is to be welcomed. In the little time that I have for my speech, I will focus on two provisions in the bill, the first of which is on the offence of non-consensual sharing of images. That addresses a gap in legislation that has allowed what is known as revenge porn to gain a foothold in Scotland, just as it has elsewhere. The insidious malicious sharing of intimate images can cause victims huge harm and destroy lives, so we need to ensure that perpetrators can be held to account for their actions. The creation of a new criminal offence will be an important step in the right direction.
I believe that there is significant underreporting of revenge porn. It is important that victims do not suffer in silence and that they know that they have done nothing wrong. Specific legislation to tackle those despicable and cowardly acts will give victims the confidence to believe that such violations of their privacy are unacceptable and illegal. In addition to empowering more people to seek justice, the creation of a specific criminal offence will help to overcome any archaic attitudes to that cruel weapon, which is used to cause distress and to embarrass, manipulate or humiliate. Some witnesses urged us to go further and to address written text and voice recordings, as well. However, I agree with the Government’s response, which is that it does not wish to dilute the offence or to cause confusion. I agree that we should keep the offence very focused.
Alongside the legislation, though, we should have a national strategy—as recommended by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland in November last year—to ensure that young people in particular understand the risks of what is known as sexting. The HMICS report warned that sexting—defined as
“the posting of self-generated intimate images on social media networks”—
is now considered a way of life by some young people, and that it could increase the vulnerability of young people who are at risk of exploitation. I would welcome an assurance from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that the Scottish Government intends to act on the report’s recommendation to develop a strategy to address those risks.
The second provision that I want to mention is that on jury direction. I acknowledge that that particular provision has proved to be controversial. If truth be told, at the beginning of the process, I was not entirely convinced that it is necessary, but having considered the evidence at stage 1, I am persuaded not only by the well-articulated case that was made by organisations including Rape Crisis Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid and the research that was carried out with mock juries, but by some of the outdated and frankly astonishing comments of some judges over the years. Members might be aware of a recent appeal court ruling that overturned a lenient sentence which described the sentencing judge’s comments as “controversial”. Comments such as “essentially non-violent relationship rapes” and
“condoning or acquiescing in rapes”
certainly are “controversial”.
Responding to questioning in committee, Lord Carloway told us in relation to sexual offences:
“the law is progressing. It is moving from a certain position, where it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago, into the modern era.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 8 December 2015; c 44.]
The movement is glacial, and it is time for change.