Hansard

As members have heard, the bill deals with two distinct issues: criminal justice modernisation, and domestic homicide and suicide reviews. Like Liam Kerr, Scottish Labour is not in favour of putting two distinct issues together, because we might have disagreements, and, in some ways, we have been here before. However, we will support the bill tonight, because we believe in modernisation and because part 2 of the bill is really required and is an excellent piece of legislation.

Most of the focus has been on the modernisation aspects of the bill. As I have tried to demonstrate through my amendments, there is quite a lot for non-practitioners and legislators to understand about the status quo in courts versus the new arrangements. The principle that we are trying to pursue is to confirm what is already in use and to ensure that there is no loss of existing rights and no detriment to the interests of justice in the court system. Therefore, we were right to test those issues.

Much of the detail of the bill’s provisions is not in the bill but will be set out via regulations, so there is still a lot to put on trust. As was put to me by a lawyer, if the system works the way in which it is supposed to work, there is no reason why it will not all go well, but that does not always happen. I have no doubt about everyone’s best intentions, but we need to ensure that there is not institutional creep, which is something that I have had to tease out in certain areas. That is why I whole-heartedly welcomed small but important Government amendments that were agreed to today.

I cited the example at stage 1 of a previous time when we agreed a time limit of 180 days for High Court trials, and look where we are now. There were delays in the High Court system well before Covid, because the law on time limits was not adhered to. That is my example of the fact that, sometimes, things can creep in that we did not intend, and that is why we must be vigilant.

The bill makes permanent the temporary provisions relating to virtual attendance in order to increase its use. Virtual attendance is a very important tool, supported by victims organisations and the legal sector. We know that, without it, some victims simply could not give their evidence. It allows cases to proceed in circumstances that, previously, would have prevented the case from going ahead. It is interesting that, at stage 1, the police witnesses demonstrated that there is more work to be done to ensure that it is an efficient process that reduces police time in court, as they were not as enthusiastic about that as I thought they might be. It is important to note that.

It is extremely important, from the point of view of victims, to note that virtual attendance should have the same value as attendance at the courtroom, not just because of the need to create solemnity and equality between the courtroom and virtual attendance, but because it is important to always ensure that the evidence that victims give virtually is taken as seriously as it would be if it were given physically in court. For that reason, there should be on-going research to ensure that that is the case.

The bill sets out that the Lord Justice General has the power to issue determinations to change the default position to virtual attendance for particular categories of cases, and my amendments, supported by the Government, set out that the Lord Justice General must provide reasons in making any determination. That is an important step, because, as we examine the reasons why virtual attendance is granted by the Lord President, it is important to see the rationale. I am glad that the Government has accepted that. The committee noted that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than there being a class of trials for which virtual attendance can be used, so that is clear.

I am also broadly satisfied with the Government’s amendment on national jurisdiction, which is a matter that my colleague Katy Clark raised in her amendments. I agree with the Law Society of Scotland that local justice should still be preferred where possible and that changes should be made only to make the system smoother.

On the issue of digital productions, my intention was that I did not want parties to lose their existing rights in relation to physical items, and it can sometimes be important for the jury to see the physical item in court. However, on the basis of what we heard from the cabinet secretary today and at stage 2 , I am satisfied that that will not be denied and that there is a process for doing that.

In conclusion, it is important to welcome the national standards for review cases involving domestic abuse and homicide. It is an important part of the legislation. If we are to stop the alarming trend of violence against women and girls, we must do everything that we can to understand why it happens in the first place. Notwithstanding the fact that, as Liam Kerr said, there could have been more improvements if we had had more time to focus specifically on that aspect, I believe and welcome that the bill will enhance our knowledge and processes in the fight against violence against women and girls.