Seòmar agus comataidhean

Last week, I gave the example of the issue that we have with the alcohol assessment, whereby the lower score that might be justified by somebody moving away from alcohol addiction might not have been captured.

The professional override—I say this as a layperson and I am sure that Cat Dalrymple will correct me if I am wrong—has now been applied again to 285 cases. The experts involved have looked at those 285 live cases and said that there are no public protection issues arising from them. As others have urged us to do, we now need to go back and look at previous cases. If 285 out of 285 cases have come back with no issues, that is a pretty good indicator of things. However, we accept that we must look at previous cases is in the interests of public reassurance.

I was aware of some of that but not as aware as you are of the detail. The system provides further reassurance. As you say, it is not the case that something is taken from one computer system and drives the whole process. Professional judgment should not be rushed past. It is an important part of the system, if not the most important part. As you say, that does not involve just one professional. The decision is checked again by others to ensure that there is nothing that should be questioned. It is a robust system.

Obviously, we regret the two issues that we have had with the IT system. We must and will learn from that. There will be an on-going process with the providers to ensure that we try to cover that in future and make the risk assessment system as robust as we can. It is and has been robust. The two issues with the IT system have given us concerns, which we have addressed, and I have said that I will come back to Parliament. However, we want to have the most robust system possible.

One feature of the Scottish justice system is that it has more people on remand and in prison than is the case in many other systems. Given that, we could be accused of being risk averse. However, we must have in place a proper system. We should be accountable for anything that has not worked as it should and for ensuring that we get things remedied as quickly as possible. That is what we are trying to do.

I briefly touched on the point about funding last week. We have made it clear that we are willing to respond to any request for financial support that derives from a need for more people and resources to look at the matter.

There are a number of levels to rebuilding people’s confidence. One relates to the IT system itself. We will engage with IT people and others to ensure that the system is as it should be. Beyond that, as a number of members have suggested, we need to go back to closed cases and ensure that the system operated as it should have done despite the IT issues. Those two things should help to provide confidence.

We are also taking the opportunity to see whether we can make further improvements to the system. We should do that at any point but this seems the right point at which to do that.

We have had a number of discussions on that. It is probably true to say that different parties across Government and, perhaps, across society have received less than they might have hoped for, but that is the nature of the budget and the cuts that have been made to it. We have now had about 10 years of austerity, which, of course, has led to pressures building up that we have tried to respond to.

We worked closely with the courts service on the budget. I should point out that the Crown Office negotiates its budget separately with the finance secretary, so it is for that organisation to answer any such questions, but I am confident that the budget, despite our constrained means, will be more than sufficient for the service to do as it intends, not least in relation to the backlog.

I might ask Jeff Gibbons to come in on that but, as a layperson, I think that the gap could be bridged, although I am not saying that I have the answers now. Many of the qualms that legal representatives have raised have been about looking somebody in the eye and having that kind of presence. The Faculty of Advocates has said that things such as presence in the courtroom and being able to read somebody’s reactions and body language are extremely important. I will say this now without having the expertise, but there might well be digital solutions that will allow us to improve in that respect.

I hope that the gap could be bridged, given some of the benefits. We have heard about vulnerable witnesses, but there is also the issue of people having to travel a long way, as well as the issue that was raised yesterday about domestic abuse. There are potentially huge benefits, but we want to try to take the profession with us. You are absolutely right that, even between the Law Society and the bar associations, there are different points of view. It must be possible to reach agreement, but it will take some work to do that, and we will have to listen to people’s concerns.

I ask Jeff Gibbons whether he wants to come in.

First, I do not consider any offence to be acceptable. That is probably true of everyone in the justice system. However, it is true to say that, as I mentioned, across different jurisdictions a level of reconviction—between 50 and 60 per cent—is associated particularly with people on short sentences. Jennifer Stoddart might want to come in on that. That is one reason why, in recent years, we have made the change to a presumption against—not a bar on—short sentences. Such sentences are very often ineffective. One of the principles and values that underlies the justice vision that we have just published is that community sentencing is often much more effective. There are lower reconviction rates among those who are given such sentences. We do not find the statistics that you mentioned to be acceptable. We want to drive the numbers down.

You quite rightly asked what we would do differently, having learned the lessons, in order to reduce reoffending. The community justice system needs to be better prepared, but it was, of course, not without its own impacts from the pandemic, whether they related to staff or the places where people needed to work. If providing more availability in that regard could reduce reconviction rates, that would be one lesson that I would want to learn. We want to ensure that the community justice system is able to rise to that challenge, were we again to release prisoners early—I underline that we have no current plans to do so.

It might be worth hearing from Jennifer Stoddart, because she was there when the decision was made last time.

That is one of the most serious powers that we are looking to extend. I have not come to that conclusion by myself—we have had strong representations from justice partners that the move is necessary to deal with the pandemic situation that we find ourselves in. Of course, the power contains certain safety valves. For example, anyone who is held on remand for longer than would normally be the case is able to challenge that, as can others.

We do not want to extend the power beyond what is absolutely necessary because, as I would acknowledge, the issue relates to fundamental questions of people’s right to liberty. We think that the move is absolutely necessary just now with regard to people on remand, but there are, of course, other time limits, some of which go in the other direction. For example, people can get longer if they are due to appear in court but cannot do so because they have contracted Covid. Given that, according to yesterday’s figures, 11,500 people in Scotland contracted Covid, that is not a theoretical possibility.

This is about ensuring that we make the justice system work and that people are safe. In summary, I would say that we recognise that these are substantial and profound powers that we do not want for any longer than is necessary, but we continue to believe, not least because of the representations that we have received from those in the justice system, that they are necessary. I realise that it would be for her to answer this, but the Lord Advocate, who is the person charged with guaranteeing people’s rights, believes that the move is necessary, too.

I do not know whether my officials have anything more to say about the issue.

I am not informed of every single use of every single power, but if, for example, a wing has to be closed down or people have to be isolated in that way, or if there is a move towards double shifting, which means more purposeful activity is taking place, I am advised of those things.

As I have said, the priority was the 285 live cases, which have now been completed. That is the priority that we set for those involved.

I should say that it was 13 January when concerns first came to light, and further tests were done by Government on 24 January, leading up to 25 February.

On the previous point, about the types of offences, those 285 live cases would have been subject to the LS/CMI, which is why we made them a priority. However, I again mention that the ones that involved sexual offences or serious violence would have been subject to a different tool that manages that high level of risk. What Cat Dalrymple is now talking about is going further and considering previous cases to ensure that we are satisfied with the rest of the system, too.

I will let Cat Dalrymple come in, but our priority was to make sure that there were no public protection issues. As has been mentioned, the index case for which somebody was first convicted sometimes does not give the full information.

I do not know whether Cat wants to add to—