Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I do not know whether either of the other witnesses would like to come in on that, but I have another question if they do not.

Victim Support Scotland told us that it is inevitable that the more people who get bail, the more offences will be committed. We know that one in eight crimes are committed by those who are on bail and that 23 per cent of bail orders were breached, so it seems logical that the more people who are bailed, the more crime there will be, the more work there will be for the police, and, perhaps, the busier the courts will become. Without fixing the bigger issue of support and investment in criminal justice social work to stop reoffending, therefore, the bill might fuel bail, fuel crime and make things worse. Do you have any view on that?

In perpetuity.

It is about resources. We are told that the national care service is a work in progress, and the minister told us that it will be at least 2024 before we know whether criminal justice social work will be part of that. If bail is to be radically changed, whatever the outcome, it is almost certain that that will put greater pressure on criminal justice social work. You cannot speak for that sector, but can you foresee how it would possibly cope with the likely increase in work? That question is probably for Joanne and Stuart.

Thank you. Feel free to come in, Stuart, if you would like to.

There are two issues: managing people who have been bailed, and early release of prisoners who might need some form of monitoring as part of the conditions of their release. Is it the case that Police Scotland cannot, as the federation states, safely manage that cohort within current resourcing arrangements?

Good morning. I have two questions. We have touched on some elements of them already. The first relates to part 1 of the bill and the grounds on which bail can be refused being narrowed to two particular criteria: one relates to the significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice, and the other relates to the risk to public safety. We have heard, off the record, from prosecutors that there are concerns about the lack of a legal definition of “public safety”. There is a fear that, if that is not properly defined in the bill, it will cause problems with interpretation that will end up clogging up the Sheriff Appeal Court. Should there be a definition? If so, what might that look like?

In Smith v M, there is a go-to definition.

Good morning. David Mackie, I was struck by your written submission. On page 25, you say:

“This is an opportunity to challenge the entrenched practices of some members of the judiciary who appear to accept the Crown’s opposition to bail applications too readily”.

On page 24, you say that, if this bill is enacted:

“We would suggest that significant cultural change—particularly amongst some parts of the Crown and judiciary—will be required for these changes to take effect”.

You are a former sheriff, so you come to this with that perspective. Can you expand a bit on the cultural blockages and issues that exist and the direction of travel? Are they less prevalent than they used to be? I do not want to surmise or put words in your mouth.

Good afternoon. The Scottish Police Federation has submitted some written evidence. The federation is not entirely sure what problem needs to be fixed. It is of the view that its members see people being granted police bail almost as a matter of routine and that the majority of those who have been kept in custody are granted bail by the court. Do you think that there is a slight disconnect between the reality of what is happening on the ground and what we are hearing from some of our witnesses, which is that too many people are being remanded?

Okay. Thank you. As far as I am aware, we will not be given evidence in person by the SPF. In response to the release of people from prison, it says that Police Scotland is already

“struggling with the management of high-risk offenders and cannot safely manage this within current resourcing arrangements”.

Do you agree with that interpretation that, right now, Police Scotland cannot manage high-risk offenders in the community? Whatever your answer to that, what happens next if the bill is passed?