Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 17 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1163 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Liam Kerr

Good morning. Superintendent Thomas, I would like to explore something that you brought up earlier. Section 2 of the bill allows the court to permit virtual attendance, but the Police Scotland submission suggests that it is not always “practicably possible” for the police to do that, and it notes that the police’s ability to facilitate it is not part of the court’s consideration. The submission also says that the current budget will not allow the police to increase that kind of support without cannibalising from other areas. Do you know how much extra will be required to make the provisions feasible? In any event, does the committee need to amend the bill in any way to, for example, make Police Scotland’s ability to facilitate that a factor in the court’s consideration?

10:15  

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

Good morning to the witnesses. Kate Wallace, you mentioned sections 2 and 7, but you did not mention section 6, which is about fiscal fines. In effect, section 6 makes permanent a temporary Covid measure that raised fiscal fines to a maximum of £500. Victim Support Scotland supported that in your submission. However, you may have heard Simon Brown saying in the earlier evidence session that fiscal fines could, in effect, decriminalise shoplifting, and Stuart Munro went on to say that a fiscal fine could lead to a suggestion that an offence is not taken seriously by victims and in general. What is your view on the principle of a fiscal fine, and do you have any concerns about permanently raising the limit to £500?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

You raise an interesting point.

Simon Brown, the SSBA submission is supportive of virtual attendance but says that you generally favour in-person attendance at trials, which is the default position. Are your concerns the same as those articulated by the Law Society, and is your general favouring of in-person attendance an observation or a suggestion that the bill should be amended?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

I understand.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

I would be grateful if you would do so, because you have said in your submission that you “seek assurance” and it will help the committee to understand exactly what you mean by that.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

I am grateful. You are right. In your written submission, you say that you

“seek assurance that communication for victims whose cases are settled with a fiscal fine will be a priority.”

Can you help the committee understand what the current situation is? What happens at the moment and what do you want to change?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

I will stick with the issue of virtual attendance, with a first question for Stuart Munro on that point. In your response to the convener, you set out the things that should be thought through when creating policy, but this is not a policy; it is a bill. Given the concerns that you have highlighted, what amendments to this particular area of the bill—section 2—should the committee consider in order to address those concerns? Or should that be done outside the legislative process?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

You raise the point that you are a practising solicitor. As Ben Macpherson declared his interest earlier, I remind the committee that I am a practising solicitor, although I do not practise criminal law and have not done so for 20 years.

Paul Smith, let us stick with the issue of virtual attendance. The Edinburgh Bar Association tells us, in its submission, that it does not support virtual attendance at the custody court.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

You earlier set out some practical issues—for example, the cost. You said that it would need millions of pounds. You also highlighted concerns about the need for effective communication between the person who is held in custody and the defence lawyer. Would you elaborate on that for the committee? Are there specific amendments to the bill that the committee needs to consider to address those concerns?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Liam Kerr

Out of interest, Stuart, on whom does the onus lie to make the changes to which you have just referred? Who could change the system?