Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 62 and 63 relate to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and seek to remove provisions that currently prevent jury research in Scotland. My amendments were lodged last summer after stage 1 and prior to the cabinet secretary lodging her amendments 152 and 153. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary has lodged those Scottish Government amendments and that the committee is considering them today.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that the Scottish Government intends to undertake further research, particularly on jury splits, which have been a live concern and consideration today. I appreciate that there are those who believe that research of that nature is already possible within the current legal framework. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that it is not possible, and the relevant provisions for England have already been repealed from the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to enable research to take place there. I welcome the fact that there will be legal certainty that, in certain circumstances, it will be possible to undertake research.

The cabinet secretary spoke about some of the mock jury research that has been carried out, and I agree with the important point that she made that certain factors can be researched only with mock jury research. However, the committee has looked at the mock jury research and the meta-analysis that has been provided to us and, as I said earlier, I am concerned that the evidence is not substantial enough to give us an understanding of what might happen to conviction rates or to the proportion of guilty and not guilty verdicts if we proceeded with the proposed legislation that is before us.

I have already referred to the concerns that were raised by the Lord Advocate and many others. We know that the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape remains the lowest of any type of crime in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary said, that is no doubt due to preconceived biases and myths that surround victims and survivors. I hope that we would all agree that we need far greater insight into the breakdown of jury outcomes and the jury split, and an understanding of jury majorities in real-world situations. The committee has already heard how research can be a vital tool in building up a sophisticated evidence base on the factors that might inform how juries reach verdicts. We all accept that the existence of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 has heavily restricted the research that can be, or is being, carried out.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will take part in the discussion on how we take forward the research. We need to look at all categories of cases, but there are specific concerns about particular types of cases. I hope that any research and work that is carried out will focus on that, so that we have a better understanding. I also hope that the cabinet secretary will be willing to engage on some of the issues in the lead-up to stage 3 to ensure that we can build up data and information to allow us to make informed decisions that deliver the Scottish Government’s policy intent, which I believe all members of the committee share.

At the appropriate stage, I will not move my amendments 62 and 63, because the Scottish Government has lodged other amendments on the issue.

Can we have an indication from the cabinet secretary of her thinking with regard to the timescales for any proposals being brought forward by the Scottish Government? Is that likely to happen before the 2026 elections?

One of the considerations is the view of the Parole Board of Scotland, as it will have a great deal of knowledge of the operational aspects of the amendments. Have you been able to ascertain views beyond those of the organisations and individuals that you mentioned?

I, too, am sympathetic to Jamie Greene’s amendments and what he has been trying to do. I appreciate that he has already put a huge amount of work into these matters in his member’s bill, whereas the committee has had no opportunity whatever to scrutinise them in any detail. As Pauline McNeill said, these matters were not in the bill as it was introduced by the Government; therefore, they were not considered by the committee as part of our stage 1 proceedings.

Campaigners are doing a huge amount of work and have met the cabinet secretary and the First Minister, and it may be some time before we have another opportunity to consider these matters. It is unlikely that there will be another bill in this session of Parliament that could take these issues forward; therefore, I urge the cabinet secretary to engage constructively with the issue to see whether it is possible to lodge amendments to this bill.

We need to have appropriate scrutiny mechanisms—that is something that the committee must consider. I want to ensure that the committee has the full opportunity to properly scrutinise any amendments that are lodged, whether they are from Jamie Greene or from the Scottish Government, because these are important matters that we need to get right. Many other countries give victims rights of this nature. However, we have a specific legal system in Scotland and we need to ensure that the bill works, which is difficult to do without the information that has been highlighted this morning.

I appreciate the work that Jamie Greene is doing, and I hope that it is possible, at the end of the day, for us to come up with amendments that can be supported by the Parliament.

I have listened carefully to what Jamie Greene said, but I think that we would want to know the position of the Parole Board and the Risk Management Authority, and get a lot more information before we enacted any of his amendments.

On Sharon Dowey’s amendments, it would be interesting to hear what she thinks the status would be of the summary of reasons that she is proposing. For example, could it be challenged? It would also bring another document and another set of reasons into the process. It would be useful to get more information on how that would be treated and its status, given the complex nature of the decisions made by the Risk Management Authority on risk. I do not know whether that is something that Sharon Dowey could come back on now or whether she could do so before stage 3.

I, too, am very grateful to the members for their work and for bringing these issues to the committee. It would be helpful to have a better understanding of the differences between the approaches. Under Maggie Chapman’s proposal, making a non-harassment order is not mandatory, including in situations in which the victim does not want a non-harassment order for some reason—there are reasons why some victims would not want a non-harassment order. I am more sympathetic towards that approach.

However, I noticed that Maggie Chapman supports Sharon Dowey’s amendment 241. It would be helpful to know whether Sharon Dowey’s amendment would also mean that there would be situations in which a court would not make a non-harassment order because of the specific circumstances of a case. We would always want the court to have discretion, given that it would be fully aware of all the facts.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful.

The point that was made about the low usage of non-harassment orders is powerful. This is an attempt to shift the onus so that there is a presumption that, in most situations, it is appropriate that the offender should not approach the victim, particularly when there have been bail conditions. It would seem to be appropriate in those situations to continue an order of the court so that there is no contact, as long as there is the provision that representations can be made when that is not appropriate.

I am sympathetic to what the members are trying to do, but we need to get the detail right. I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is similar to the intervention that I made earlier. Have you had discussions with the Risk Management Authority about how orders for lifelong restriction are dealt with?

My amendment 67 was lodged last summer. Since then, the cabinet secretary has appeared before the committee, and I understand that there has been progress in starting work to bring in GPS electronic monitoring in a very narrow set of circumstances. I welcome that.

However, Scotland is well behind most other countries, including England, in the use of electronic monitoring generally, and specifically in relation to the use of GPS technology. The Scottish Government agrees that such monitoring would be suitable in many types of cases. Large numbers of people are in prison in Scotland and we know that many victims legitimately fear offenders, some of whom are a significant risk. However, some risks could potentially be more effectively managed and addressed by forms of electronic monitoring. Given the slow progress on the issue in Scotland, giving it more parliamentary scrutiny and attention could help it to become a Government priority. I hope that ministers in the justice portfolio find that helpful.

Amendment 67 calls for a report on the

“effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

to be published

“no later than 1 year after Royal Assent”

and laid before the Parliament. In particular, the report would set out

“whether the Scottish Ministers consider that the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology would improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring requirements in protecting victims and witnesses”

and perhaps the range of circumstances in which that would be appropriate.

GPS-based electronic monitoring is a technology that is used successfully in many countries worldwide and offers the potential to enhance victim safety through proactive and real-time safeguards. GPS technology’s beneficial aspects include: the geofencing feature, which sets up virtual boundaries and allows for quick responses if offenders enter or leave designated areas; continuous surveillance; and more precise location flagging. Those features provide greater peace of mind for victims, particularly in domestic violence or stalking cases, and, depending on how the technology is used, could potentially reduce and prevent crime.

I know that the cabinet secretary has given thought to the issue and is working on it already. I hope that an amendment of this nature will be helpful in driving the use of technology in Scotland’s justice system and I look forward to her response.

I move amendment 67.

Although it might not be appropriate for a victim to be notified on every occasion—such as when an offender was attending a funeral, as they would usually be escorted—does Jamie Greene agree that, if an offender was starting to be let out on day release, it would be appropriate for the victim to know that they might see them? Pre-warning would enable the victim to plan and to deal with that.