Meeting of the Parliament 18 September 2019
Although I disagree with his motion—to which we have, of course, lodged an amendment—I thank Liam Kerr for bringing today’s debate. It is an important debate for us to have in relation to trust in the judiciary, for example.
I want to lay out why public trust is important, what lies at the heart of the Scottish Government’s approach to sentencing policy, and why it matters to us all in the chamber that we talk about approaches to criminal justice policy that are rooted in fairness both for victims—yes—and in relation to rehabilitation. I also want to lay out why we in Scotland cannot go on locking up more and more of our citizens in numbers that are far in excess of those of most mainstream countries in Europe.
The criminal courts make decisions that are of vital importance to all of us, day in and day out. They have a very challenging job in making decisions that can affect us directly, if we are involved in a court case, and indirectly, through the experiences of family and friends who are either accused of crimes or victims of crimes.
It is no exaggeration to say that maintaining public confidence in the criminal courts is absolutely essential to maintaining law and order. We can imagine a scenario in which people did not have confidence in the justice system—victims would be discouraged from reporting their experiences, and wider public confidence in the ability of that system to keep communities safe would be undermined.
Although I will reflect on what the survey that Liam Kerr quoted said in relation to the percentage of people who think that sentences are too lenient, it is also fair to say that, in the very same study from which he quoted, nearly two thirds of people agreed that Scotland’s justice system is fair to all, which I am pleased about. I am, of course, keen to improve that level of confidence and trust further.
At the heart of the Scottish Government’s approach to sentencing policy is a very simple fundamental position, of which we must not lose sight. It has been absolutely central to the debate that has occurred in the past couple of weeks, as is illustrated by the events that are happening in the Supreme Court in London as I speak. That position is that, in all cases—without exception—sentencing decisions are for the independent courts and judiciary to make, based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Of course I accept that that must be done within the overall legal framework, but so much of that framework is based on case law that has come before our courts in the past. The courts hear all the evidence and are best placed to weigh up all relevant considerations in reaching a sentencing decision. That is not to say that I necessarily agree with every sentencing decision that is made by a court. However, whatever personal view I might hold about a case is, frankly, irrelevant. Courts must be allowed to reach decisions without fear or favour in relation to anyone—especially politicians, and regardless of whether they are in government or in opposition. I respect the independent role of the courts and hope that every other member in the chamber does the same.
The way to improve the already high level of public trust in the justice system and sentencing is to help people understand better what I accept is a complex system. I have listened to what Liam Kerr had to say and I do not disagree with too much of it in so far as it relates to the complexity of sentencing, about which I hear from victims time and time again. I assure the chamber that it is one of the central issues that the Lord Advocate and I, as co-chairs of the victims task force, are looking at in relation to how we might demystify sentencing.