Hansard

I am pleased to open on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee in the stage 1 debate on the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill.

The committee has taken time to consider the proposals in the bill carefully, and we agreed our stage 1 report unanimously. I thank our clerking team, Scottish Parliament information centre colleagues and everyone who supported our consideration of the bill, and everyone who assisted our scrutiny by providing valuable written and oral evidence.

I will highlight some of the main findings set out in our stage 1 report. As we have heard, it is a two-part bill. Part 1 makes permanent a number of the temporary court procedures that were introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic to enable courts to continue functioning safely. It also introduces two new procedures to modernise how courts operate. Many of those provisions were broadly welcomed in evidence, and they attracted our support, too.

There was widespread support for the proposal to make permanent the electronic signing and sending of certain legal documents. However, we highlighted the need to avoid digital exclusion for those who find it difficult to use technology. The Government’s response highlights that the bill does not provide that the electronic signing and sending of documents will be a requirement; rather, it allows for certain documents to be signed and sent electronically.

There was broad support for the proposal to allow digital images to be used in court in place of physical evidence—typically a weapon or an item of stolen property—which will help the efficiency of the wider criminal justice system. However, we think that the right for any party to require the actual physical evidence to be produced in court should be strengthened in the bill. We also recommended that the retention policy for physical evidence should be updated to reflect the new provisions in the bill; we do not want important evidence to be disposed of prematurely.

The bill proposes to make permanent the recent increase in the levels of fiscal fines. In certain circumstances, fiscal fines allow a person to pay a fine, thereby avoiding being prosecuted and obtaining a criminal conviction. We understood the logic behind that approach. If fiscal fines are being used by prosecutors for particular types of offence, the level of the fines will need to keep pace with inflation. However, we heard some concerns about the potential for non-payment to increase, as well as calls for victims to be informed when a fiscal fine is accepted. Those issues will need to be monitored.

A particular area of interest in our evidence sessions was the proposal to make permanent the current rules on virtual attendance at court. In principle, we are not against the concept of virtual attendance at court. It has been seen to deliver efficiencies in the use of court time and improvements for some users of the justice system, particularly professional witnesses.

In principle, we are supportive of making aspects of the current temporary arrangements permanent, but we think that the bill must include clearer rules setting out how the courts should use those powers. For example, we think that there should be additional criteria for the Lord Justice General to take into account before making a general determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular types of cases. We also think that clearer rules are required as to the types of location from which it is appropriate that virtual attendance can take place.

We also think that the practical concerns expressed about the current operation of virtual custody courts need to be addressed. I note the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendation on that aspect, which says that

“the current tests are well understood by the courts. The test of whether something is contrary to ‘the interests of justice’ is used in a wide range of different situations in criminal procedure”.

Another proposal that attracted interest was the proposal to make permanent the provision for a national jurisdiction when courts are dealing with the initial stages of a custody case. We support the idea that the current temporary measures should be made permanent. However, we feel that there must be greater clarity about the point at which national jurisdiction ends. In our view, that should be the point at which full committal takes place. That is in the interests of preserving the important principle of local justice, which benefits users of the justice system. I note that the Government’s response clarifies the circumstances in which national jurisdiction can be used and the point at which it ends, in both solemn and summary proceedings.

Part 2 of the bill establishes a new system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. The committee welcomes the principle of having such reviews, which will fill a gap in the review landscape in Scotland. Crucially, they will allow lessons to be learned, identify areas for change and improvement, and help to prevent future abuse and deaths.

I will highlight the committee’s main conclusions relating to part 2. We acknowledged that the scope of the review process is broader than the current definition of domestic abuse, which amounts to criminal conduct. We heard conflicting views on whether the definition in the bill was too wide. However, the committee recognised that many people who experience domestic abuse do not report their abusers to the police. As such, we felt that the wider definition in the bill will allow greater opportunities to learn lessons and to prevent future deaths.

The bill also contains provisions to allow future expansion of the scope of such reviews, such as including deaths in the context of honour-based abuse. I note the Government’s commitment to include other types of deaths, including so-called honour killings, within the model.

The committee heard concerns about where domestic homicide and suicide reviews would fit into the already complex review landscape in Scotland. We recommended that the Scottish Government provide detail on how joint and multi-agency reviews will work in practice. It is crucial that, where possible, such reviews intersect with existing processes but do not duplicate them, so as to minimise the impacts on grieving families. Following the conducting of such a review, an anonymised report would be published. Given the relatively small population of Scotland, we have concerns about the ability to truly anonymise such reports. It is clear to us that there is a risk of further traumatising families by making reports publicly available. We ask that the impact on surviving family members be central to consideration of how reports are published, shared or distributed.

The committee welcomed many of the bill’s provisions. In some areas, we commented on specific provisions and, on occasion, we made recommendations to the Scottish Government to strengthen its proposals. Overall, however, we are content to support the general principles of the bill. If the Parliament agrees to the general principles today, we are ready to scrutinise the bill at stage 2.