The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1639 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
Will the member take an intervention?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
In respect of amendment 1040, notwithstanding the issue of Covid emergency legislation, does Jamie Greene agree that the two provisions in the amendment should be part of the legislation anyway?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
These four amendments relate to fiscal fines and the emergency provision to increase the rate of the fines from £300 to £500. I will start with amendments 1040 and 1038: agreement to these amendments would, in effect, negate the need for amendments 1037 and 1039.
Amendment 1040 would ensure that victims of crime are notified when a fiscal fine offer has been accepted. It would make it a duty of the Crown Office to inform complainers of the outcomes. Furthermore, where rejection of a fiscal fine occurred, the procurator fiscal would be obliged to inform a complainer of the result of subsequent prosecution—or non-prosecution, as the case may be.
We have a fundamental concern about the lack of transparency with regard to fiscal fines. As things stand, the public have no way to find out about disposal and nor do the victims, unless they seek that information. According to the Crown Office, they are told only that an alternative to prosecution was pursued. Many will not even know that there has been a disposal. Some of those cases relate to serious crimes, including violent crime.
Amendment 1038 relates to increasing the limit from £300 to £500. It seems inevitable that so doing could bring into scope crimes of an even more serious nature. The problem that we have is that we just do not know. We do not know because the evidence to the committee from the Crown Office and the Scottish Government has been unclear about whether the fines would apply to more types of offences. Frankly, there has been a scarcity of data on which we can make that decision. However, it seems inevitable that an increase to £500 has the potential to increase not just the seriousness of offences but the number of fiscal fines.
There is another issue with regard to fiscal fines, because, if accepted, they do not count as criminal convictions. I am not sure whether many victims are aware of that difference or whether it has been properly explained to them.
My concern is that the greater use of the fines on the basis of Covid justification, with no real measure or analysis of people’s understanding of them or their implementation, could undermine public faith in justice and, as I have already touched on, fewer victims will even know that their case is disposed of.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
Does the member not agree that it is a fundamental element of transparency and open justice that victims of crime—whether a serious or a less serious crime—should be entitled to basic information as to how the case was disposed of?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
At the start of your response on this group of amendments, you said that some questions can be answered only by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. However, we still do not know—you might be about to come on to this—whether the scope of the offences has been broadened. If it has, what offences have been added to those that can be considered?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
I will be very quick, convener. Pauline McNeill made some interesting points about some accused people perhaps taking a fiscal fine for the sake of convenience, which is the flip side to those who are accused not taking one as a bit of a gamble. It strikes me that the way in which fiscal fines are being used risks turning the justice system into a game of bluff, which is in nobody’s interest.
I think that amendment 1040 is absolutely valid and necessary, and I encourage members to support it.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
I will stick to what is relevant to the powers of the Scottish Parliament and what I am here as a member to discuss. We are here to discuss the specific issues of these amendments.
Kate Wallace, who the cabinet secretary quoted earlier, said that the impact of those early releases was far greater than the 348 cases, because victims
“did not know who was going to be released.”
Her organisation and others received what she called a “massive upsurge” in calls from victims who she described as being “petrified”. They struggled to cope with the volume of calls that they received. She was also critical about the lack of information sharing or support for victims, who she described as
“traumatised by the thought of the perpetrators in their cases being released from prison early.”
She added that
“No regard whatsoever was paid to that.”
Understandably, she was clear that
“we do not agree with decreasing the length of time”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 23 February 2022; c 11-12.]
that is served. Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid shared some of those concerns and made a more general point that sheriffs seemed to be getting pushed into alleviating pressures in the system, rather than considering victims’ rights.
I move on to amendments 1051 to 1055. If it is the case that ministers retain the powers to release prisoners, which they have now, amendments 1051 to 1055 would seek to ensure that certain categories of prisoners would be exempt from such release. It is my understanding that the Scottish Government has said that none of the 348 who were released early were convicted of domestic crimes, but the legislation does not exempt such prisoners from any future early release. The other amendments that I mentioned would ensure that other types of prisoner were not able to be released under that power. That includes those who are convicted on indictment, those convicted of crimes of violence, those convicted of sexual crimes and, as already stated, those convicted of domestic crimes.
For all the reasons that have already been laid out, we would rather that ministers did not have those powers full stop, but if they do, it seems sensible and proper that prisoners who are convicted of those crimes should be exempt, and that is what our amendments seek to do. I hope that the cabinet secretary will give that some consideration and, if he does not, I hope that other committee members will vote for the amendments, not least given the strength of the evidence that we have heard from the victims organisations.
I move amendment 1049.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
Will the minister accept an intervention?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
Has the Scottish Government asked the UK Government for any changes to the bill, or is it content with the wording as it stands?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 8 June 2022
Russell Findlay
Yes.