Meeting of the Parliament 21 June 2023
The focus of the bill is to limit custody to those who pose a risk to public safety or to when it is necessary to prevent significant risk of prejudice. There are clearly benefits to reducing the damaging effects of short-term detention. Section 1 requires the court to give criminal justice social work the opportunity to provide information to the court when making decisions about bail.
Under the current language in the bill, that opportunity is mandatory. Although I think that the intention is good, I raised concerns at stage 2 about the inconsistencies in the provision of justice social work in courts across the country. In Glasgow, we are well served, but other parts of Scotland are not. Therefore, the opportunity will not be equal across the country.
Amendment 67 would replace the requirement that the court “must” request information from justice social work, and it would make that discretionary by inserting that the court “may” request that information. In a written submission to the Government, the Senators of the College of Justice stated:
“there will be many occasions on which such input is plainly irrelevant and the imposition of a statutory requirement to seek a report in such circumstances would seem inappropriate. For example, if an accused person is charged with a serious offence of violence and has a significant record of similar offending there is, on the face of it, very little prospect of that person being granted bail. In such cases it is difficult to see any purpose in requiring the court to seek a report with the attendant delay and demands upon the resources of the social work department.”
David Fraser of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service also noted that, if justice social work reports were required in every case, that would create the potential for reports not being available when they were required in court.
I would like the Parliament to note that, in my exchange with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs at stage 2, she clearly and helpfully set out that there is no intention behind the provision to delay any proceedings of the court in that manner, although some people had thought that that was the case. It just seems to me that it would make more sense to say that there “may” be an opportunity, rather than that there “must” be one, because the opportunity does not have to be taken up in every single case.
My amendment 67 would remove the statutory requirement to seek a report and, instead, allow the court a degree of discretion, depending on the context of the case and the history of the alleged offender.
I move amendment 67.