Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning to the witnesses. You might have heard some of the questions on this area during the earlier evidence session. Quite a few of us had questions about the specific restrictions that are proposed in the bill around the limit on days and times when fireworks can be sold and used. What do you think of those restrictions and do you have any concerns about the legislation specifying certain days?

Okay, thanks. I am happy to leave it there. Those have been two really good answers about those particular restrictions and it is good to have them on the record.

My questions follow on quite well from those that Rona Mackay and Katy Clark asked, so I run the risk of repeating what has been said or of asking the witnesses to repeat themselves.

Like other members round the table, I was involved in the bill that became the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019, which has been mentioned. That was before the pandemic, when we had no idea about the existence of Covid. Scotland was very much on a route—rightly or wrongly; I believe that it was right—to ensure that vulnerable witnesses did not need to go into a court set-up, given the trauma that they could experience. The pandemic then came. As Katy Clark articulated, we all felt that there would be more such trials, so the statistics are perhaps a wee bit surprising, given the opportunities that the pandemic allowed for.

All that said, I note that the bill asks us to allow some of the provisions to continue in order to speed up the process of vulnerable witnesses being able to give their evidence out of court. Will the bill as drafted allow you to continue to take steps, which began with the 2019 act and other processes that were already in place, to ensure that vulnerable witnesses in the most difficult of cases do not need to appear in court?

I am hearing good levels of support from both of you, but is the bill required? You have both identified that other processes are in place. Is the bill required to make the transition easier and give you more tools in order to get to the point where we want to be?

Yes—thanks a lot. I have to say that the previous panel, who were from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the courts, indicated quite strong support for the bill. I do not want to step on Katy Clark’s toes here, as I am sure that she will go into this but, when I asked the previous panel about the progress that they had started to make, their answer seemed to be that there had not been as many virtual trials as we had expected throughout the pandemic, but that there was a clear desire to move in that direction. The previous two witnesses felt that the legislation was needed to allow us to do that. I suppose that I am just following up with you the question that I asked them, but I think that you have answered it.

Thank you. It was important to get on the record some practical examples of how the bill might impact.

Good morning, cabinet secretary—it is still morning. A couple of months ago, or it might have been more than that, the committee met some vulnerable witnesses who had been through the court system, and we heard the harrowing experiences of witnesses and victims—in some cases, alleged victims—of some of the most harrowing offences, which you will know about. The committee committed to making sure that their experiences, although they were given to us privately, would be fed back when we got the opportunity to do so.

On that basis, I want to go back to an earlier part of our discussion when we talked about the evidence that we heard from defence lawyers last week about needing to see the accuser and interpret body language. We have heard that, if people who had experienced such offences presented as confident and capable, things went against them—or, at least, they felt that they did—and that the same happened if they broke down.

It is worth highlighting that context to indicate why I—and, I know, other members—support a move towards having more remote hearings and ensuring that as many vulnerable witnesses as possible do not have to be present in court. The previous evidence session was really good, as it confirmed that the court system would still have the power to have hearings in person if that was appropriate for all parties.

You probably answered the main part of my question in your opening statement and in your responses to my colleague Jamie Greene, but what I want to know is how much the proposed legislation is actually needed to let us move towards a more remote system that protects vulnerable witnesses, particularly in the most high-profile domestic abuse cases. Does the Parliament need to pass the bill to help us meet that objective?

I do not have any specific questions that have not already been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I have a thought, rather than a question. It is obviously not ideal to be in a situation where we are looking to extend these things but I think that we are all in the same boat there. We are living in difficult times and, as was highlighted at the start, the pandemic is still with us, so, in certain areas where people are living closer together, such as prisons, we still need to err on the side of caution.

Yes—just briefly, convener.

I think that we are all a bit worried about the backlog and what it might mean. I hear that from you, and it was really good to hear at the start that you think that we are on track to have the backlog cleared.

I want to ask about other possible solutions or options that you might have in relation to minor offences. How would cases be identified and prioritised if prosecutions of such offences were no longer taken forward?

Given the time period, how will you take into account changes in people’s circumstances? I will give two examples. You have said that those on remand are a priority, but somebody could have already been on remand for longer than the maximum disposal. We would imagine that that would be taken into account.

There are also more minor situations in communities in which people are not remanded. Would there be scope to look at situations that have almost resolved themselves? We know that it happens quite a lot that the accused and the victim repair the situation themselves. Are such circumstances taken into account when you prioritise cases?

Thank you. You have addressed the issue that I was getting at, which was about the public interest in such cases. If people are spending significant periods of time on remand, their situation can change significantly, particularly in cases involving more minor offences.

There is probably more public interest in continuing with more serious cases, because they can involve psychological and emotional abuse, too. That is not the case in more minor cases. I had in mind the example of youth offending. A kid could have been 16 at the time of an offence. If the case has been going on for a long time, they might be 20, by which time they might have repaired some of the issues with their community. I will not labour the point.