Criminal Justice Committee 26 November 2025 [Draft]
The Crown Office’s position on that, which it put forward when it was in front of the committee, provided an interesting perspective. Emma Forbes said that this is a type of offending that is carried out behind closed doors, like other types of offending that we have criminalised. Such offences are slightly more challenging to prosecute, but, as she said,
“That does not mean that we should not do it and that the difficulties are insurmountable”,—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 2.]
because they certainly are not. All such offences are difficult to prove, but no one is suggesting that those offences—for instance, similar crimes such as rape or domestic abuse—should be repealed.
Established evidential routes are already available. I had that conversation with the Lord Advocate, and I have had numerous meetings with Police Scotland and other members of COPFS, because I thought that that was a very important point that had to be explored. In the past few weeks, I have had at least two and possibly three such meetings exploring the issue further with them. We have discussed various scenarios and what type of evidence might be used.
For the committee’s information, the evidence could be things such as digital communication, as the convener has mentioned, which could show the time, what act was requested and what price was agreed on. It could involve using payment traces and bank app data. In the meeting with the Lord Advocate, it was confirmed to me that that would not always require extensive digital forensics; it could just be screenshots—those would be sufficient. Surveillance could be used, where appropriate, as could various types of online intelligence. Obviously, third-party testimony would be a type of evidence that could well be used, as well as buyer admissions—the committee might be surprised to know that, sometimes, people admit that they have committed a crime when questioned by the police.