Chamber
Plenary, 19 Feb 2003
19 Feb 2003 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
Amendment 85, as Roseanna Cunningham said, seeks to insert an additional subsection into section 14 to include in the bill the provision that victim statements will be piloted for a specified period, and evaluated before a decision is made to extend such schemes. That would require the Scottish ministers to set out in secondary legislation the duration of the pilot schemes. I make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that it is the intention of ministers to pilot those schemes. Roseanna Cunningham was right to say that they should only proceed by way of pilots, because there are a number of issues. We have always said that it was our intention to pilot victim statements in two areas for two years, and to evaluate the pilots before we sought to extend victim statements.
It will already be possible under the provisions of the bill to establish pilot schemes. The bill includes a power in section 14(1) to prescribe in secondary legislation the courts, or class of court, in which victim statement schemes will operate. That means that we can prescribe only those courts in which we will pilot victim statements. Obviously, an order will have to be brought before the Parliament. That order will be subject to affirmative resolution. Before the pilot scheme can be implemented, an order will have to state the courts in which the pilots will take place, so members will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the proposed pilot areas. Similarly, any proposal to extend the victim statement scheme will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Parliament, so the Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the extension.
As I said, it is intended that we will pilot the scheme for two years. Amendment 85 would only oblige ministers to put into secondary legislation what we have already said we will do. The establishment of pilots will require Parliament to debate an affirmative order.
Roseanna Cunningham said that amendment 86 is, in some respects, a probing amendment that seeks to achieve three objectives by querying some of the provisions in the bill. The first is to require the prosecutor to provide a copy of the statement "forthwith … to the accused". I assume that that means upon receipt by the prosecutor of a victim statement, although that is not clear.
The second objective of amendment 86 is to clarify in the bill the existing right of the accused to cross-examine the victim on a victim statement. The third objective is to enable the judge or sheriff to require the jury to withdraw from the court during any cross-examination of the victim by the accused, if the victim statement is deemed not to be relevant to the charge brought against the accused. I will deal with those issues separately.
First, I will deal with the early provision of the statement to the accused. The status of the victim statement is important in relation to the early provision of the victim statement to the accused. Victim statements are not intended to be evidential documents. Their main purpose will be to give victims the opportunity to tell the court directly the way in which, and the degree to which, the offence or crime has affected or continues to affect them. Their introduction is a response to the concern that victims have expressed that they do not have a voice in the criminal justice process. The statement is intended to give victims that voice.
It is acknowledged that, occasionally, a victim statement might contain information that is of evidential value. In such circumstances, case law places a duty on the Crown to disclose to the defence evidence in its possession that would tend to exculpate the accused.
Roseanna Cunningham said that my amendments in the group might be inconsistent with an amended charge on which the accused might be found guilty. I have grave misgivings about introducing a requirement for the prosecutor immediately to provide the victim statement to the accused. In effect, that could mean that the accused had access to sensitive personal information about the victim before and during the trial. That information might not be relevant evidentially, but it could allow the victim to be cross-examined before the court on matters that were not relevant to the charge. That might make victims feel intimidated and pressured by the accused to update their statement.
It will already be possible under the provisions of the bill to establish pilot schemes. The bill includes a power in section 14(1) to prescribe in secondary legislation the courts, or class of court, in which victim statement schemes will operate. That means that we can prescribe only those courts in which we will pilot victim statements. Obviously, an order will have to be brought before the Parliament. That order will be subject to affirmative resolution. Before the pilot scheme can be implemented, an order will have to state the courts in which the pilots will take place, so members will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the proposed pilot areas. Similarly, any proposal to extend the victim statement scheme will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Parliament, so the Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the extension.
As I said, it is intended that we will pilot the scheme for two years. Amendment 85 would only oblige ministers to put into secondary legislation what we have already said we will do. The establishment of pilots will require Parliament to debate an affirmative order.
Roseanna Cunningham said that amendment 86 is, in some respects, a probing amendment that seeks to achieve three objectives by querying some of the provisions in the bill. The first is to require the prosecutor to provide a copy of the statement "forthwith … to the accused". I assume that that means upon receipt by the prosecutor of a victim statement, although that is not clear.
The second objective of amendment 86 is to clarify in the bill the existing right of the accused to cross-examine the victim on a victim statement. The third objective is to enable the judge or sheriff to require the jury to withdraw from the court during any cross-examination of the victim by the accused, if the victim statement is deemed not to be relevant to the charge brought against the accused. I will deal with those issues separately.
First, I will deal with the early provision of the statement to the accused. The status of the victim statement is important in relation to the early provision of the victim statement to the accused. Victim statements are not intended to be evidential documents. Their main purpose will be to give victims the opportunity to tell the court directly the way in which, and the degree to which, the offence or crime has affected or continues to affect them. Their introduction is a response to the concern that victims have expressed that they do not have a voice in the criminal justice process. The statement is intended to give victims that voice.
It is acknowledged that, occasionally, a victim statement might contain information that is of evidential value. In such circumstances, case law places a duty on the Crown to disclose to the defence evidence in its possession that would tend to exculpate the accused.
Roseanna Cunningham said that my amendments in the group might be inconsistent with an amended charge on which the accused might be found guilty. I have grave misgivings about introducing a requirement for the prosecutor immediately to provide the victim statement to the accused. In effect, that could mean that the accused had access to sensitive personal information about the victim before and during the trial. That information might not be relevant evidentially, but it could allow the victim to be cross-examined before the court on matters that were not relevant to the charge. That might make victims feel intimidated and pressured by the accused to update their statement.
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.