Criminal Justice Committee 11 June 2025
That was a helpful exchange. I just want to put on record that I hope that my intention here is not misunderstood—I support the use of virtual attendance, and the cabinet secretary has clarified that, whatever the location, the proceedings will be delivered with solemnity et cetera, which is important. I do not think that the committee should settle for anything less; if this is going to be a permanent feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, we have to ensure that it is done to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we all recognise that it can reduce delays and make things easier for victims.
I should say that it was not me who brought up the issue of locations; the Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association raised concerns about people giving evidence from home, and it was mentioned by another witness, too. That is why I addressed it. I share their concerns, although I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, and the cabinet secretary makes an important point when she says that someone could have a specific reason for giving evidence from home. I think that that would be okay, but I am not in favour of people giving evidence from home for the sake of convenience, because I do not believe that that would satisfy the test. I would prefer us to nail that issue down at stage 3 so that it is clear, because as far as I can see, at the moment, the bill is silent on the matter.
It is important that we future proof the bill. I presume that, if connection speeds improve, this approach might be used a bit more, and we have to be clear about when it can be used in the interests of justice.
I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about public officials and the ability to give evidence virtually being a vital component of their work. However, I was surprised to hear her comment in relation to police evidence, given that the police have concerns about giving evidence virtually, for reasons related to the reliability of the connections.
I did not comment on Liam Kerr’s amendments at the time, and I do not want to speak for him, but on his amendment 41, I am not clear why that provision would be needed in all circumstances. I can see why, in some circumstances, you might not publish the location. However, the location could be checked, for reasons that we have already discussed. I am not too clear about that; after all, if someone gives evidence in court, they are giving evidence in a known location with a known address.
I support what was said about Liam Kerr’s amendment 43. If there is to be a report, it has to be about more than just gathering data. There are some reservations about whether virtual attendance is all that it is said to be, and I hope that the Government will consider what might be done to give us the kind of report that will mean something, given that this is a substantive—indeed, permanent—change. We did what we needed to do during the pandemic, but the fact that we did something then as a necessity to get through trials should not be an argument for continuing to do it now.
I hope that, before we close the door on this at stage 3, the Government will give more thought to it. That said, I will not be pressing amendment 34.