- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 05 June 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Shona Robison on 16 June 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many people have received direct payments for social care in each of the last five years, broken down by local authority area.
Answer
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.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 20 May 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 29 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to implement the recommendations on disclosure contained in Review of the Law and Practice of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings in Scotland.
Answer
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.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 20 May 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Frank Mulholland on 28 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in implementing recommendations 29 and 30 of The ACPOS and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service working group formed to develop joint protocols, as recommended in the Bonomy Report.
Answer
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.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.
Answer
The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information in relation to any case referred to him.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force.
Answer
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had received a total of 32 such requests by 31 March 2008.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been (a) disclosed in the first instance, (b) refused in the first instance, (c) disclosed after review and (d) refused after review.
Answer
Nineteen requests for information, made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, have resulted in information being released, while eight have been refused. Two requests resulted in partial disclosure. To date, four requests for review have been received and, in each case, the original decision to withhold information was found to have been correct.
In addition, in one case the SCCRC did not hold the information requested and, in another, the information requested was obtained from another source.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Answer
One such request had been referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner by 31 March 2008.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Answer
The Scottish Information Commissioner has never instructed the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to disclose information, therefore no such appeals have ever been made.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission holds records of the names of individual solicitors referred to the commission on grounds of defective representation.
Answer
Individual applications from members of the public and/or their legal representatives will include the names of solicitors involved in a case, as will the Statement of Reasons that the Commission provides in relation to each application.
- Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
-
Current Status:
Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008
To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds for appeal.
Answer
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.
