Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

27 Jun 2001 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders

Grahame, Christine SNP South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

The SNP welcomes these progressive proposals. We all hope that, once they are fleshed out, they will facilitate a balance between the release of those who have been convicted of serious violent and sexual offences—when they have served their time to a measure—and the absolute necessity of protecting the public within the framework of the requirements of the ECHR. I agree completely with Roseanna Cunningham that the test of whether something is ECHR-compliant comes when a case is raised, as it is case-based legislation. Article 5 of the ECHR, on the right to liberty and scrutiny, will undoubtedly be cited, as will article 11, on the freedom of assembly and association. Those are not absolute, but are designed to protect the public and their rights.

In 2000, there were 6,963 convictions for serious assault and 1,822 convictions for sexual assault. It is interesting to note that 89 per cent of those who had an index conviction for violence in 1995 were male, and that 34 per cent of them had a previous conviction for violence. The more violent convictions they had had, the more violent they were likely to become. We are using the proposals not only as a monitoring measure but as a protective and preventive measure.

There will be cost implications for the risk management authority, and it is made clear in recommendation 6 of the white paper that the risk management authority will have an operating budget. Gordon Jackson raised concerns about the pressures on the criminal justice budget due to existing issues, such as slopping out and the reduction in the number of women who are sent to prison. It is clear that there are competing priorities. Perhaps it is too early to know, but can the minister tell us what the resource implications might be for the operation of the risk management authority?

Recommendation 21 states that a risk assessment order would authorise

"the detention of the accused for up to 90 days, or up to 180 days on cause shown".

That will have resource implications, as there are time limits. Perhaps, again, it is too early to know, but will those time limits be absolute and what will the resource implications be? Have they been costed?

As many members, including Kay Ullrich and Donald Gorrie, have said, the test will be the quality of the risk assessment with regard to not only whether the scheme operates appropriately, but whether it secures public confidence. It would take only one case to go wrong for the system that we all welcome to be challenged.

Recommendation 13 states that the judge will set out

"the circumstances of the offence as narrated in court, which report should be preserved with the case papers for later use if required."

With regard to Kay Ullrich's point, it would be useful if the minister could clarify whether that is the kind of material that would be available to the social workers and those at a local level who prepare the risk assessment.

Recommendation 23 involves the making of the order for lifelong restriction. The test is on the balance of probabilities. There could be difficulties with that in that it is a criminal provision that is being continued and the usual evidential test is that something should be beyond reasonable doubt. I would like the minister to address how safe the Executive feels that level of test to be.

My party is interested in the detail of the proposal, which will be drawn out when the matter comes before a committee—and I hope that it comes before my committee. I am sure that there will be some interesting discussions that will help to make the proposal become effective and workable law, not just in the primary legislation but in the guidelines, which will be extremely important.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

In the same item of business