Seòmar agus comataidhean

I remembered that Karyn McCluskey gave strong evidence to the committee the last time she was here, so I went back to look at it. You said to the committee that community-based disposal orders are an issue, and that 80 per cent of sheriffs would like to give such sentences but cannot, because users of drug services simply lead chaotic lives and the disposals take place at specific times. Sheriffs end up giving short-term sentences because they cannot see a way around that. Is there a way around the problem of sheriffs not having confidence that structured community sentencing in its current form can work?

The sheriffs have a problem when they are looking at whether someone is a drug user, because drug services are available at specific times. I am trying to establish whether there is a way around that in a community sentence. If you cannot fix that bit, there will be an unending cycle.

Are you saying that we need to combine the community service orders that anyone could get with community service orders for people who have drug or alcohol addiction issues, so that sheriffs can be confident that they can apply a community service order as part of a prison sentence, because they are satisfied that, within that, they can work around the issues, so that a prisoner can get access to the drug services that they need. Is that correct?

Is there any information on how often the maximum fine has been used? My reason for asking is that £300 to £500 is a significant jump. That maximum has been in place and you are asking the committee to support its extension.

Good morning. It is interesting to note that the use of fiscal fines has fallen. Is there any information on the levels of fiscal fines that have been used? How often have the maximum fines been used? In the pandemic period, the maximum fine was increased to £500, and you propose to extend that.

You said that sheriffs like to give those sentences because some people cannot

“be at a drug service”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 1 November 2023; c 61.]

at a specific time, simply because they lead “chaotic” lives. I think that that means that they cannot complete the requirements for a community sentence, so sheriffs give them a short-term prison sentence. When you said that last time, I wondered whether there was a way around that so that sheriffs can award community sentences if they can get around the challenges.

It looks as though some progress is being made in relation to the pleading diet. Forty-three weeks is 301 days—I have just used my calculator—and the legal limit without the extension is 110 days. You want to extend the time limits significantly, but how confident are you that progress will continue to be made if you do that, given that, as you know, the system was not meeting the time limits by quite a long way even before the pandemic?

I welcome that. However, as you know, I share Russell Findlay’s concerns about the impact on remand in particular. I know that you cannot answer this question, but I have questioned quite closely the Crown’s continual pushing for the indictment process to be 180 days, and I still do not have an answer as to why that would be necessary. However, I understand that setting a pleading diet is more difficult.

Do you want the national jurisdiction to remain in place under the SSI that is before the committee? Before the pandemic, the principle in Scots law had always been that a person would be tried in the particular sheriffdom where the crime was committed. The reasons for that were that the sheriffs who serve in a sheriffdom will know the area and that that approach makes sense for the accused and those who attend court for the case. Is the problem with the national jurisdiction not that, for example, someone in the sheriffdom of Glasgow—forgive me, but I cannot remember its full title—could end up in court in Aberdeen? It concerns me that you intend to make the measure permanent. The committee has no information on where people are being tried under the provision. We accepted that it was necessary and proportionate during the pandemic, but I question that provision, too.

Good morning. Lynsey, I will continue by asking a follow-up to Ben Macpherson’s question. In answer to his question, you said that there is a level of intensity required to pull together teams. Is one of the key issues that it is expensive to have the intensity to pull teams together?

The reason why I ask that is that when we first created drugs courts, I assumed that anyone who had a drug addiction would go to the drugs court, but I was told that they would be for the people who it was felt had the most difficult problems. That is because of the cost of pulling teams together, and their being resource intensive. Has the situation ever been better than it is now, or do you envisage that it is always going to be a problem because of the intensity of the resource that is required?

Does a drug treatment and testing order get around the problem of not applying a community sentence? In my understanding, a community sentence is an alternative to prison. You do something for a specific length of time, and if you are a drug user you cannot do that because you have to go and do that thing. Does applying a drug treatment and testing order get around that?