Seòmar agus comataidhean

This information is available from the latest statistics release, Direct Payments Scotland 2007, which was published on the Internet on 25 September 2007. The document can be found using the following link:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/Publications.

A copy is also available in the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (Bib. number 43799).

The Scottish Government is committed to radically improving the uptake of self-directed support. I recently convened a roundtable on self-directed support to inform government strategy in this area which will consider practical tools to achieve this aim.

As the Scottish Government announced on 29 April 2008, we will in the near future bring forward legislation to deliver the review''s recommendations on disclosure.

Both recommendations relate to the disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and the Scottish police.

Recommendation 29 suggested that the police and COPFS should commit to a process of full disclosure in all solemn cases in connection with the implementation of High Court Reform in 2005.

Recommendation 30 suggested that COPFS should consider a pilot for routine disclosure of a summary of the Crown case in summary cases.

I am pleased to confirm that both recommendations have been implemented in full, Recommendation 29 was implemented in November 2004 when the then Lord Advocate Lord Boyd issued a Crown Practice Statement in relation to the disclosure of evidence by the Crown in High Court Cases.

The Crown Practice Statement took full effect from 1 January 2005 and continues to apply to all High Court cases indicted on or after 1 April 2005 and was extended to all solemn cases from 1 September 2005.

In relation to Recommendation 30, a successful pilot was conducted in Dumfries and Galloway in 2007 and the new process was rolled out nationally in September 2007 to support the Summary Justice Reform programme. All summary complaints now include a summary of evidence against the accused.

Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.

The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.

The information requested is set out in the following table.

Number of applications received by the SCCRC, broken down by main grounds of review - 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008

Ground of Review	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04
110 Day Rule	0	0	0	0	0
Advanced Technology	1	3	0	1	0
Change in the Law	1	0	1	0	2
Change of Witness Testimony	2	0	0	0	0
Commission''s Powers Required	0	0	0	1	0
Comparative Justice	0	0	0	0	0
Conspiracy	0	0	0	1	2
Credibility/Reliability of Evidence	1	3	5	1	9
Credibility/Reliability of Witness	0	0	0	1	3
Defective Representation	23	20	19	19	17
Denies Acting in Concert	0	1	0	0	0
Diminished Responsibility	0	0	4	3	0
Duress	0	0	0	3	0
Excessive Sentence	3	3	0	2	5
False Accusations	0	1	0	1	0
False Confession	0	0	1	0	0
Human Rights Issue	5	2	2	2	2
Illegal Search	0	0	0	1	0
Improper Service of Indictment	0	1	0	0	0
Jury Misconduct	0	1	0	0	0
Lack of Corroboration	1	2	0	2	0
Mental Health Issues	0	0	0	0	0
Misdirection by Trial Judge	1	4	4	6	4
Mistaken Identity	0	0	1	0	1
New Evidence	34	16	12	5	4
New Witness	0	0	3	4	2
Perjury	15	3	3	2	1
Point of Law	1	0	0	0	0
Police Misconduct	4	1	3	7	3
Procedural Irregularity	2	0	2	1	0
Review of Art and Part	1	0	0	0	0
Self Defence	1	0	0	0	0
Sufficiency	0	0	0	2	0
Unfair Trial	10	0	4	9	16
Unreasonable Jury	2	0	4	1	0
Wrong Sentence Imposed	0	0	0	0	0
Wrongful Conviction	0	1	0	2	4
Not Stated	12	7	3	2	7
Totals	=SUM(ABOVE) 120	=SUM(ABOVE) 69	=SUM(ABOVE) 71	=SUM(ABOVE) 79	=SUM(ABOVE) 82

 

Ground of Review	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08	Total
110 Day Rule	2	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Advanced Technology	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 5
Change in the Law	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 4
Change of Witness Testimony	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Commission''s Powers Required	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Comparative Justice	1	2	1	0	=SUM(LEFT) 4
Conspiracy	0	3	0	2	=SUM(LEFT) 8
Credibility/Reliability of Evidence	27	24	18	13	=SUM(LEFT) 101
Credibility/Reliability of Witness	2	5	3	6	=SUM(LEFT) 20
Defective Representation	9	22	20	19	=SUM(LEFT) 168
Denies Acting in Concert	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Diminished Responsibility	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 7
Duress	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 3
Excessive Sentence	6	7	1	2	=SUM(LEFT) 29
False Accusations	1	4	1	2	=SUM(LEFT) 10
False Confession	1	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Human Rights Issue	2	1	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 16
Illegal Search	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Improper Service of Indictment	0	1	0	0	2
Jury Misconduct	1	4	1	1	8
Lack of Corroboration	1	14	0	0	20
Mental Health Issues	1	3	5	1	10
Misdirection by Trial Judge	3	5	2	4	33
Mistaken Identity	0	1	1	1	5
New Evidence	3	3	3	3	83
New Witness	0	0	0	0	9
Perjury	0	0	0	1	25
Point of Law	0	1	0	0	2
Police Misconduct	4	5	0	0	27
Procedural Irregularity	0	0	0	0	5
Review of Art and Part	0	0	0	0	1
Self Defence	1	2	2	0	6
Sufficiency	0	1	1	1	5
Unfair Trial	7	7	17	13	=SUM(LEFT) 83
Unreasonable Jury	1	0	1	1	10
Wrong Sentence Imposed	0	2	0	0	2
Wrongful Conviction	2	2	4	2	=SUM(LEFT) 17
Not Stated	5	3	0	1	=SUM(LEFT) 40
Totals	=SUM(ABOVE) 80	=SUM(ABOVE) 122	=SUM(ABOVE) 81	=SUM(ABOVE) 73	=SUM(LEFT) 777

 

 

It should be noted that other grounds of review may subsequently be identified. However the commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.

I refer the member to the answer to question S3W-12400 on 8 May 2008. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament''s website; the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.

The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.

One such request had been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner by 31 March 2008.

Solicitors are not referred to the SCCRC. Once an application has been reviewed by the SCCRC it can be referred to the High Court.

When the court considers a case, the details of that case (including the names of any solicitors or other legal representatives involved) will be contained in any published opinion and will be a matter of public record.

Section 194J of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence for any member or employee of the SCCRC to disclose information obtained by the SCCRC in the exercise of any of its functions. The possibility of information provided by applicants, witnesses and/or victims subsequently being disclosed, other than in court, could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, including the work of the SCCRC. Witnesses and/or people under investigation should not be inhibited or deterred from co-operating in investigations by the possibility that information provided may be disclosed or that their identity is revealed to the public, outwith the protection of the court. Accordingly, such information is not normally made available.

The approach to be taken by the courts in cases in which there is an allegation of defective representation is defined in Anderson vs H.M. Advocate (1996 SCCR 114). The then Lord Justice General stated that the conduct of the defence by the accused''s legal representative can only provide a ground for appeal if it deprives the accused of a fair trial. He further stated that this can only have occurred where the conduct was such that the accused''s defence was not presented to the court.

This may be because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to present his defence; or because his legal representative acted contrary to his instructions as to the defence he wished to be put forward; or because of other conduct which, because his defence had not been put, had the effect of denying him a fair trial.

In considering applications for review based on defective representation, the SCCRC applies the above approach.