Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I stated and as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, I have no intention of pressing amendment 79 or moving its corresponding amendment on summary proceedings, which I think is amendment 82—although I think that the numbers have been jumbled up in some of the testimony so far.

I will start with the positive: the cabinet secretary made some very smart and interesting points about amendment 80 and its corresponding amendment on summary proceedings, on what happens in cases where there are multiple victims and complainers. She also made a good point, which I had not considered, about what happens when individuals are subject to pressure from an accused, whether through coercion domestically or even in the context of organised crime or things of that nature. Her point makes sense and, therefore, I do not intend to move amendments 80 and 83.

However, I turn to a negative point: I absolutely do not buy the novel argument put forward by the cabinet secretary that some victims appear to want to be kept in the dark. That is absolutely not my experience.

There should be universality, exactly as in Jamie Greene’s amendment 239. Communication, respect and transparency are fundamental issues. If you are the victim of a crime, you put your faith in the hands of the police, the prosecutors and the court. At the very least, it is reasonable to expect to be told whether no further proceedings are being taken. The Lord Advocate is on the record, telling me and the committee three or four years ago that that should already happen in respect of plea deals, but we know that it does not. Much as Jamie Greene is struggling to understand the rationale behind the Government’s opposition to amendment 239, I do not understand the rationale behind its opposition to amendment 81.

Yes.

I thank the convener and the clerks for facilitating my being here today. It feels like I have never been away, and I see that you have not thrown away my nameplate, which is good news.

The reason why I am here is that, for years, I have worked with crime victims, both in my current job and in my previous job as a journalist. I regard some of my amendments to be unfinished business, and I have given an undertaking to some of those people that I would see this through to a natural conclusion.

First, I will explain what amendment 78 would do and then I will turn to why we need it. When an individual is involved in criminal and civil court proceedings at the same time, the amendment would require the Lord President or the sheriff principal to consider allocating the same sheriff or judge to both sets of proceedings.

The reason why we need that is that domestic violence and abuse victims, who are mostly women, often find themselves simultaneously involved in civil disputes with ex-partners—those could be divorce, child custody, financial or even business-related proceedings. Abusers are using the legal system to inflict further harm on their victims, which comes at a huge cost to those victims, both emotional—obviously—and financial. Abusers use those parallel processes to seek delays in either the criminal or the civil case, and sometimes both, in order to prolong the distress. During the stage 1 evidence-taking sessions, witnesses told the committee that that also has a detrimental impact on children in some family disputes.

I have been raising the issue for a number of years, previously as a journalist and now as a politician, and it is important that we attempt to address it. I will quickly touch on some of the evidence that we have heard. In a written submission, Rape Crisis Scotland said that civil courts should

“stop their processes being used as a means of abuse.”

In September 2023, I raised the issue with the cabinet secretary in committee, and she seemed receptive to the principle that we are proposing. In response to the committee’s stage 1 report, she said—I summarise—that that would be quite a big undertaking, but that it was worth exploring. In addition, she said that some workshops would be held this year, so I would be interested to hear more about them today.

I will close with a few words from Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid, who told the committee 17 months ago that

“Every sheriff I have spoken to thought it was a good idea.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 October 2023; c 26.]

She also said:

“Frankly, I do not think that it is too much to ask.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 March 2023; c 26.]

Neither do I, and nor do the many victims of what is being called legal system abuse. A significant reform would be the allocation of a single sheriff or judge to deal with simultaneous criminal and civil cases, where it is practical to do so. That would help curtail legal game playing and system abuse.

It is important to point out that the amendment does not impinge on judicial independence. It requires the Lord President only to “have regard to”—

No, and I do not think that that would be necessary. Even if this were to act as a signal from the Parliament to the judiciary that this was a reasonable ask, I have been very careful not to go near saying, “The judiciary must do this.” It might well be that sheriffs principal—to whom this will mostly relate rather than the Lord President, who deals with the upper courts—are having these considerations already. I do not know, but I think that, by putting this in legislation, it effectively gives them a nudge and says, “This would be a sensible thing to do. It is a fairly commonsense measure.” However, we will see what the cabinet secretary has to say about it.

I move amendment 78.

In 2021, the Lord Advocate told the committee that

“the complainer should be told the details of the plea, the basis on which it is accepted and the reasons or rationale for that.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 22 December 2021; c 28-29.]

That does not happen—or it certainly does not happen as a matter of policy or routine. Something on a bit of paper somewhere might say that it should happen, but, as evidenced by Jamie Greene’s amendment, my own experiences and the stuff that we have all heard, it is evident that it is just not happening.

While I have you, have you had any feedback from the judiciary about my proposal?

To clarify, what is an “IDEC”?

I do not agree with the cabinet secretary’s defining of this issue as being one of great magnitude, and certainly not when it is compared with the example that she just cited, which was the proposal to anonymise the child victims of murder. That is a whole different ball game and raises all sorts of issues related to freedom of speech and what is and is not in the public record.

I understand that the amendment would present practical difficulties for the judiciary. Having raised the issue on multiple occasions over the past 18 months or so, I also think that the Government has been talking to the judiciary. I do not think that we have had any formal feedback on that; it sounds as though it has all been fairly unofficial.

However, my position now is that, rather than trying to do the right thing but doing it badly, I will not press amendment 78 today. I do not intend to take up the cabinet secretary’s time if doing so would be fruitless or futile, but if there is scope for a brief discussion between stages 2 and 3 to see whether there is a way of bringing the matter back in an acceptable way, that would be very welcome.

Amendment 78, by agreement, withdrawn.

Ah, it is A. I am sorry, I misheard that. I thought it was an E and I could not work it out.

I am not wholly convinced by the argument that amendment 78 would create a whole lot of difficulties for justice and the administration of the courts because it is entirely discretionary and the Lord President or the sheriff principal would make a decision based on what is in front of them. That same argument also would not fly if a case was in a different level of the court system where, once again, that would be entirely discretionary.

I am encouraged, as I am sure that victims will be, to hear that there have been workshops and to hear about the various other bits of work that the cabinet secretary has referred to. That is good, but, if I am reading the cabinet secretary correctly, it sounds as if the judiciary do not like this one bit and might not be minded to proceed with something similar, even if it is non-legislative.

I have to decide whether to press amendment 78. Is there any scope for the cabinet secretary to give the idea some consideration between stages 2 and 3 and perhaps for a conversation in which some of those matters could be discussed in greater detail to see whether there is any common ground for some form of amendment that might attempt to go some way towards addressing this very important issue?