Criminal Justice Committee 12 March 2025 [Draft]
Good morning, convener and colleagues. I begin with my minor technical amendment 140, which adjusts the wording of the definition of “child” in section 23 of the bill so that references to age are internally consistent in the bill.
I will now address the rest of the amendments in the group, which were lodged by Mr Kerr. I understand that the intention of the amendments is to establish the different legal meanings of the terms “victim” and “complainer” and to add “complainers” to the title of the victims and witnesses commissioner. I will respectfully outline my concerns about Mr Kerr’s amendments and why, for a number of reasons, I am not able to support them.
Most importantly, the commissioner is to be a champion for all victims and survivors of crime. Many people who are victims of a crime might not report it or pursue it beyond an initial report. One of the main drivers of the bill is to improve the experiences of all victims and survivors to ensure that they come forward, seek justice and are supported to do so. Although I do not think that it is Mr Kerr’s intention, there is a danger that his amendments would send a message that the commissioner distinguishes between victims. That is unhelpful and goes against the aims of the victims and witnesses commissioner and of the bill.
Of course, I recognise the legitimacy of the term “complainer”. Indeed, the bill uses it where legally required—for example, in section 64 in relation to independent legal representation. In fact, members will note that the terms “victim” and “complainer” are used in different parts of the bill. Those words are used deliberately and intentionally to befit the legal status of the individual being referred to.
I disagree with any notion that a victim is not a victim unless a person has been tried in a court of law. I also resist any suggestion that using the term “victim” is prejudicial and assumes guilt. I know that Mr Kerr did not do that in his remarks, but the term “victim” attaches to the individual who has been harmed, rather than implying anything about who has caused the harm.
Victim Support Scotland has told us that the term “complainer” is particularly problematic for a large number of victims and survivors. It makes them feel that they are seen as complaining in the ordinary sense of the term, rather than having a legitimate right to seek justice. It makes them feel as though their experience is being trivialised as a complaint, rather than seen as a life-changing event. Therefore, it is important for us to acknowledge that victims do not need to have gone through a formal legal process to have been harmed, to be victims and to know that the commissioner has regard to them.
I urge the committee to oppose Mr Kerr’s amendments and agree with me that there should be no change in the name of the commissioner.
That said, I already plan to lodge an amendment at stage 3 in relation to the current definition of “victim” in the bill, taking account of the Government amendments on the victim notification scheme. I would therefore like to end on a conciliatory note and offer to discuss the definition with Mr Kerr ahead of stage 3. Having listened to Mr Kerr’s commentary this morning, I think that we actually have the same aims on these matters.