Chamber
Plenary, 19 Feb 2003
19 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Amendment 90 seeks to remove the section on victim statements, but I hope that I will not have to move it. I lodged the amendment because the Executive has been confused about the purpose and effect of victim statements throughout the process. We were supposed to have clarification at stage 3, but I am more minded to move amendment 90 than I was before we started stage 3, because the minister has shown that he is still confused about the purpose of victim statements. His exchange with Roseanna Cunningham made it clear that the proposal is only half thought out.
The progress group is considering the way in which victim statements could be implemented. Some of the issues that it has come up with are the same as those that the Justice 2 Committee raised. The matter is still being discussed, but such discussion should have been held before we thought about implementing such a scheme. We should not pass the bill and hope for the best.
I return to what was said at the start of the debate. Everyone agrees that we want to give victims a voice and let them know that their voice will be heard in the criminal justice system. Although the minister expressed that desire, he did not tell us what the purpose of victim statements is. The bill's explanatory notes identify a twin purpose: the first is that victim statements will have an impact on sentencing, the extent of which has not yet been defined; and the second is that the knowledge that their voice is being heard will be of therapeutic value to victims.
The minister will remember our discussions at stage 2, at which it was not made clear whether victim statements were meant to have a material impact on sentencing—in other words, whether they would change or add to a sentence. The danger of not making that clear is that the victim might expect that their victim statement would lead to a stronger and stiffer sentence. However, the reverse would be the case and the victims would be disappointed; victim statements would make things worse for the victim.
As the therapeutic value of victim statements rests on the victim's being able to see justice being done, the victim might well come out of the process less satisfied than if he or she had not been able to make such a statement. That is what some of the evidence—most important, an article that was entitled "Victim Impact Statements: Don't Work, Can't Work"—that the Justice 2 Committee received at stage 2 suggested. We need a great deal more clarity from the minister before we can support victim statements.
Cross-examination, which the progress group has already expressed concern about, has been mentioned. Victim statements raise the possibility that the victim will be cross-examined on their statement at a later stage. The victim would go through the process in court not just once, but twice. Would that be to the advantage of the victim? Would it make the system better and more inclusive? I do not believe that such a system would be better than the one that we have.
At face value, victim statements are an attractive idea, but we are in danger of raising expectations that will not merely not be met, but might be dashed. Victims' expectations will not be fulfilled.
We have discussed the question of what happens with conflicting evidence, but I do not believe we have had a great deal of clarity on the matter. We are not sure from what the minister said at which stage in the process possibly contradictory evidence in the victim's statement would come in. If, as the minister suggested, it would come in during the trial, or it were up to the prosecutor to make that evidence available, would that mean that the whole statement would be available? If the statement were not made available, would that provide grounds for appeal on the basis that it should have been made available? Those questions need to be answered by the minister today. This is not a stage 1 debate after which we will have more time: it is the final stage of the legislative process. If the minister is not at this stage clear, I do not, to be frank, know how the measure can be passed.
The progress group is considering the way in which victim statements could be implemented. Some of the issues that it has come up with are the same as those that the Justice 2 Committee raised. The matter is still being discussed, but such discussion should have been held before we thought about implementing such a scheme. We should not pass the bill and hope for the best.
I return to what was said at the start of the debate. Everyone agrees that we want to give victims a voice and let them know that their voice will be heard in the criminal justice system. Although the minister expressed that desire, he did not tell us what the purpose of victim statements is. The bill's explanatory notes identify a twin purpose: the first is that victim statements will have an impact on sentencing, the extent of which has not yet been defined; and the second is that the knowledge that their voice is being heard will be of therapeutic value to victims.
The minister will remember our discussions at stage 2, at which it was not made clear whether victim statements were meant to have a material impact on sentencing—in other words, whether they would change or add to a sentence. The danger of not making that clear is that the victim might expect that their victim statement would lead to a stronger and stiffer sentence. However, the reverse would be the case and the victims would be disappointed; victim statements would make things worse for the victim.
As the therapeutic value of victim statements rests on the victim's being able to see justice being done, the victim might well come out of the process less satisfied than if he or she had not been able to make such a statement. That is what some of the evidence—most important, an article that was entitled "Victim Impact Statements: Don't Work, Can't Work"—that the Justice 2 Committee received at stage 2 suggested. We need a great deal more clarity from the minister before we can support victim statements.
Cross-examination, which the progress group has already expressed concern about, has been mentioned. Victim statements raise the possibility that the victim will be cross-examined on their statement at a later stage. The victim would go through the process in court not just once, but twice. Would that be to the advantage of the victim? Would it make the system better and more inclusive? I do not believe that such a system would be better than the one that we have.
At face value, victim statements are an attractive idea, but we are in danger of raising expectations that will not merely not be met, but might be dashed. Victims' expectations will not be fulfilled.
We have discussed the question of what happens with conflicting evidence, but I do not believe we have had a great deal of clarity on the matter. We are not sure from what the minister said at which stage in the process possibly contradictory evidence in the victim's statement would come in. If, as the minister suggested, it would come in during the trial, or it were up to the prosecutor to make that evidence available, would that mean that the whole statement would be available? If the statement were not made available, would that provide grounds for appeal on the basis that it should have been made available? Those questions need to be answered by the minister today. This is not a stage 1 debate after which we will have more time: it is the final stage of the legislative process. If the minister is not at this stage clear, I do not, to be frank, know how the measure can be passed.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
We come now to the proceedings for stage 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members will require the bill, as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list...
Section 1—Risk assessment and order for lifelong restriction
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Amendment 11 is grouped with amendments 82 and 83.
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry):
Lab
Section 1 of the bill will introduce a number of new sections in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 relating to the new order for lifelong restrictio...
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP):
SNP
The SNP has no difficulty with amendment 11. However, we want to raise the issues that amendments 82 and 83 encompass. Although I accept the minister's comme...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
It is fair to say that the issues for consideration in the first two groups of amendments have caused genuine and general anxiety. We all acknowledge the pot...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the many changes that the Executive made to section 1 mainly because of the comments in the Justice 2 Committee's report. The section deals with or...
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab):
Lab
Amendment 11 provides better wording than that which the Justice 2 Committee provided in its stage 2 amendment. Amendment 82 comes down to a question of bala...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
On amendment 82, we believe that the word "likelihood", which the bill uses, is acceptable terminology. It is a recognised phrase in law and it is understand...
Amendment 11 agreed to.
Amendment 82 moved—Roseanna Cunningham.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
There will be a division. Members who wish to support Ms Alexander's amendment should press their yes buttons now.
Members:
Ms Cunningham's amendment.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
What did I say?
Roseanna Cunningham:
SNP
You said, "Ms Alexander's amendment", Presiding Officer.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
I am sorry. The tongue and the brain are obviously not in sync this morning. The amendment is in Roseanna Cunningham's name.
ForAdam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP) Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP) Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) Crawford, Bru...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 82 disagreed to.
Amendment 83 moved—Roseanna Cunningham.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
There will be a division.
ForAdam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP) Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (S...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 76, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 83 disagreed to.
Section 8—Preparation of risk management plans: further provision
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
Amendment 12 is grouped with amendments 13 to 15, 84 and 17.