Meeting of the Parliament 23 April 2024
I thank the Criminal Justice Committee team for their assistance and not least for the unseen work of the eternally patient researchers and clerks. Committee members rely on witnesses sharing their insights, experiences and expertise, and particular recognition should be given to victims, including survivors of sexual violence, who waived their anonymity to deliver powerful and compelling testimony.
According to its title, the bill is ostensibly about victims. Members might not know that its working title was the “Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”. The bill is mainly about justice reform, as the original name had it. It is a vehicle to deliver some of the most profound changes to Scotland’s criminal justice system for, perhaps, centuries. Some might like to describe the changes as bold and radical, but I believe that much of it is experimental and founded on wishful thinking rather than hard evidence.
It is unlikely that many members will have read our stage 1 report—all 205 pages of it—but I will attempt to summarise it. The bill is in six parts. Before I come to each part, I note that I believe that one of the most important overarching issues with the bill is that it is, frankly, far too big. The Government has a track record of bad law—clunky, confusing and unworkable. The Parliament cannot allow that to continue. In that vein, I am encouraged by media reports of some Scottish National Party members being willing to stand up and be counted today.
Part 1 of the bill would create the role of a commissioner for victims and witnesses. On the face of it, what is not to like? A commissioner would fight for the rights of victims and witnesses and be a champion for those who are afflicted by crime and justice system failures. However, the commissioner would not be able to become involved in individual cases, so what is the point? Does Scotland’s public sector really need yet another hugely expensive functionary producing reams of jargon? Committee members were not persuaded by the Government’s proposal for a commissioner—and that was unanimous.
Part 2 of the bill requires some criminal justice agencies to “have regard” to what is called trauma-informed practice. Having spent months talking about, and listening to people talking about, trauma-informed practice, I am still no clearer on its exact definition. Our stage 1 report raised numerous concerns, including the observation that
“legislation is not necessarily required to deliver improvements”.
I believe that that is a significant understatement. Victims and witnesses have been disrespected for far too long and a lack of basic compassion, courtesy and communication often causes great distress. Look at the ordeals of the seven women who appeared in the recent BBC “Disclosure” documentary “Surviving Domestic Abuse”—they do not want legislative platitudes.
It is notable that some of the justice organisations that back trauma-informed practice have a track record of failing victims. The new report by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland, Laura Paton, says that many of her 27 recommendations relate to matters that are already required but that are not yet being routinely delivered by the Crown Office.
Part 3 of the bill would introduce special measures in civil court cases. Once again, on the face of it, that is largely agreeable. However, as our stage 1 report points out, legislation relating to special measures has still not come into force four years after being passed by Parliament. I raised the issue of what is known as “legal system abuse” with the cabinet secretary. That is when abusers, mostly men, who are facing criminal proceedings simultaneously weaponise the civil court system to inflict further trauma. I put a simple fix to the cabinet secretary, suggesting that the same sheriff should preside over connected criminal and civil cases. I felt that her response was lukewarm, but that practical measure could make a real difference.
Part 4 of the bill calls for the abolition of the not proven verdict.