Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 June 2013
19 Jun 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The bill has been one of the most interesting pieces of legislation that I have worked on in my time on the Justice Committee, and I believe that many of my colleagues feel the same. The submissions that have been provided by individuals and groups have shown the real experiences of real people affected by crime on their journey through the justice system, not necessarily as the direct victims of crime but as victims who have lost loved ones as a result of crime and negligence.
As Christine Grahame mentioned, perhaps the most informative session that the Justice Committee held was the round-table event that was held in private, which victims of crime attended to give their stories and experiences of and comments about the justice system. Some of what we heard was quite harrowing, and I felt that some negative experiences could have been avoided merely by the authorities’ using a degree of common sense. It was difficult not to leave such a session demanding wholesale change, such was the effect of some of those traumatic stories. However, justice must be balanced, and I hope that the committee’s stage 1 report strikes a good balance as a starting point in identifying necessary reforms to the way in which we deal with victims and witnesses in the Scottish justice system.
As the cabinet secretary mentioned and as Malcolm Chisholm highlighted, it is only reasonable for those who enter the justice system to expect care and service of such a standard that a very difficult situation is not made even more traumatic. As we have heard, many victims and witnesses felt that every time that they moved further down the justice system chain, they had to describe and relive their experiences for a different official. I believe that that problem can be avoided, but like the majority of my colleagues on the Justice Committee I am not minded to support the idea of a case companion.
Like others, I want to ensure that the victim has the right to be questioned by someone of the same gender—a particularly obvious request in serious sexual assault cases. However, I take on board the fact that, due to other factors in the police service, such as shift patterns and court work, that may be difficult to achieve at all times. I am content with the assurances that have been given by Police Scotland that every attempt will be made to ensure that investigation officers of the same gender as the victim are made available when required.
Another difficulty is the definition of vulnerable witness. Only as the difficulties of keeping a truly balanced justice system were highlighted, after hearing from the likes of the children’s commissioner, Children 1st and others, did the rather settled view that I started this legislative journey with change slightly. I totally agree that, if possible, we must ensure that vulnerable witnesses—certainly, victims under 12—are given the opportunity to give their testimony away from court. Along with other special measures, that will ease the intimidation that is felt prior to and during court proceedings, especially if the victim or witness is a child, and it will improve the quality of that person’s testimony while protecting them from the full force of our adversarial system. That can only be good.
Nevertheless, there are certain individuals aged under 18 who have seen the justice system at first hand over a number of years and are extremely tough nuts to crack. Should those people, in the interests of justice, not be allowed to face interrogation in court because of their age? That is something for discussion. I am of the belief that there is a case for challenging the granting of special measures in some cases. I am not convinced that a one-size-fits-all approach is correct. However, caution is called for and, as the stage 1 report points out, clarity is required
“as to where responsibility lies in relation to establishing the vulnerability of ... witnesses”.
During the committee’s deliberations, I had personal difficulty with the issue of the relatives of victims of road traffic accidents obtaining, as a matter of right, all information relating to the investigation of the fatality. I fully understand the wishes of relatives to obtain information relating to the loss of a loved one, as I went through the same heartache when my brother Lindsay was killed in a motorcycle accident just over four years ago. Of course, the relatives want to know what happened—there needs to be closure. In my experience, Strathclyde Police dealt with the problem in an exemplary manner. They showed me the crash scene and went through the details of what happened, as seen by witnesses and taking into consideration the road conditions. On a personal level, I am unclear about why more detail is required. My problem with full disclosure as a right is that the description and, in particular, the photographs of the accident may be gruesome and rather harrowing in nature.
If the cabinet secretary is minded to support the right to full disclosure, I ask that he ensures that the systems are in place to explain to relatives what is in the documents, and that that is done sensitively. I suggest that raw data should not just be handed over as a matter of course.
As Christine Grahame mentioned, perhaps the most informative session that the Justice Committee held was the round-table event that was held in private, which victims of crime attended to give their stories and experiences of and comments about the justice system. Some of what we heard was quite harrowing, and I felt that some negative experiences could have been avoided merely by the authorities’ using a degree of common sense. It was difficult not to leave such a session demanding wholesale change, such was the effect of some of those traumatic stories. However, justice must be balanced, and I hope that the committee’s stage 1 report strikes a good balance as a starting point in identifying necessary reforms to the way in which we deal with victims and witnesses in the Scottish justice system.
As the cabinet secretary mentioned and as Malcolm Chisholm highlighted, it is only reasonable for those who enter the justice system to expect care and service of such a standard that a very difficult situation is not made even more traumatic. As we have heard, many victims and witnesses felt that every time that they moved further down the justice system chain, they had to describe and relive their experiences for a different official. I believe that that problem can be avoided, but like the majority of my colleagues on the Justice Committee I am not minded to support the idea of a case companion.
Like others, I want to ensure that the victim has the right to be questioned by someone of the same gender—a particularly obvious request in serious sexual assault cases. However, I take on board the fact that, due to other factors in the police service, such as shift patterns and court work, that may be difficult to achieve at all times. I am content with the assurances that have been given by Police Scotland that every attempt will be made to ensure that investigation officers of the same gender as the victim are made available when required.
Another difficulty is the definition of vulnerable witness. Only as the difficulties of keeping a truly balanced justice system were highlighted, after hearing from the likes of the children’s commissioner, Children 1st and others, did the rather settled view that I started this legislative journey with change slightly. I totally agree that, if possible, we must ensure that vulnerable witnesses—certainly, victims under 12—are given the opportunity to give their testimony away from court. Along with other special measures, that will ease the intimidation that is felt prior to and during court proceedings, especially if the victim or witness is a child, and it will improve the quality of that person’s testimony while protecting them from the full force of our adversarial system. That can only be good.
Nevertheless, there are certain individuals aged under 18 who have seen the justice system at first hand over a number of years and are extremely tough nuts to crack. Should those people, in the interests of justice, not be allowed to face interrogation in court because of their age? That is something for discussion. I am of the belief that there is a case for challenging the granting of special measures in some cases. I am not convinced that a one-size-fits-all approach is correct. However, caution is called for and, as the stage 1 report points out, clarity is required
“as to where responsibility lies in relation to establishing the vulnerability of ... witnesses”.
During the committee’s deliberations, I had personal difficulty with the issue of the relatives of victims of road traffic accidents obtaining, as a matter of right, all information relating to the investigation of the fatality. I fully understand the wishes of relatives to obtain information relating to the loss of a loved one, as I went through the same heartache when my brother Lindsay was killed in a motorcycle accident just over four years ago. Of course, the relatives want to know what happened—there needs to be closure. In my experience, Strathclyde Police dealt with the problem in an exemplary manner. They showed me the crash scene and went through the details of what happened, as seen by witnesses and taking into consideration the road conditions. On a personal level, I am unclear about why more detail is required. My problem with full disclosure as a right is that the description and, in particular, the photographs of the accident may be gruesome and rather harrowing in nature.
If the cabinet secretary is minded to support the right to full disclosure, I ask that he ensures that the systems are in place to explain to relatives what is in the documents, and that that is done sensitively. I suggest that raw data should not just be handed over as a matter of course.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06987, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on stage 1 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.I call Mr ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the stage 1 debate on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and I thank the Justice Committee and the Health an...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Is the cabinet secretary saying that the existing law is not compatible with the ECHR? What does he have to say to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Y...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
We would not have laws in this country that were not compatible with the ECHR, because of the nature of how this Parliament is established. I can assure Mr C...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that the challenge to the use of special measures may increase ci...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I do not believe so. I met Scottish Women’s Aid just recently and I believe that, overall, the bill will provide what such agencies clearly desire. However, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
Cabinet secretary, could you come to a conclusion?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
People should not be denied the opportunity of acknowledgement—they should not be denied that benefit.
Jenny Marra
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I am sorry; I have been asked to wind up.I welcome the wide support to date for both the justice and health elements of the bill. We are happy to discuss and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Christine Grahame, who will speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Ms Grahame, you have nine minutes.15:25
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
As the Presiding Officer says, I speak in this debate on behalf of the Justice Committee, which was the lead committee considering the bill. However, I want ...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I hope that you are not going to challenge me—it is your report.
Jenny Marra
Lab
I am not going to challenge you, convener. The evidence that we heard from the victims of crime compellingly showed that people do not want to tell their sto...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I remind members to speak through the chair.
Christine Grahame
SNP
The report states:“witnesses asked for continuity in the support provided across the system.”That is the important part. However, I think that we all agreed ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Duncan McNeil to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee.15:34
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, express my thanks and appreciation for all those who allowed us to do our job in support of the Justice Committee in considering the bill, with a par...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Mr McNeil, you must conclude.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
Whether we call it a person-centred approach or the right thing to do, or say that it is not before time, action is necessary. We support the bill at stage 1...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Labour is happy to support the Government’s motion and the general principles of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.Earlier this year, at the Scottish...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I simply want Jenny Marra to confirm her position, because she signed up to the words:“On balance, the Committee does not believe that a compelling case has ...
Jenny Marra
Lab
Committee reports are always agreed by the committee, but Scottish Labour thinks that there is a compelling case for case companions.Just as the Government i...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
Given the member’s strength of feeling on case companions, did she think about whether it would have been appropriate to have a minority entry put in the Jus...
Jenny Marra
Lab
As I said in response to the convener, committee reports are always agreed by the committee, and I think that we made our point in committee that we think th...
Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.As I said, one area of concern that we have is about the bill’s monitoring and reporting procedures. Our concerns were raised during the committee’s evide...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
The member is not giving way. Interruption. Can we have order, please?