Seòmar agus comataidhean

I know that this is all theoretical, but can you just confirm that, if that were to happen, there is no mechanism to force early release prisoners to engage, and that engagement would just be on the basis of good will on their part?

I am okay just now, thank you.

If the public has no way of finding out what has happened with a disposal, are victims told?

I presume that victims who are told that might assume, or be led to believe, that the disposal was a fiscal fine, although they would not necessarily know whether it had been rejected and whether no further action was then taken. That level of detail would not be explained.

Mr Donnelly, in respect of multiple-accused solemn trials, many of those, as the written evidence says, relate to organised crime. Can you quantify the backlog in cases of that nature?

No worries—thank you.

Some of those cases can involve violence and fines of up to £500, so it is a significant level of offending. Is not there a slight risk of the principle of open justice not being adhered to?

The legislation allows fiscal fines to increase from a £300 limit to a £500 limit. What kind of offences would be brought into that upper limit?

I will touch on a subject that you have already mentioned. Statistics show that, of the 348 people who were released early, 142 went on to reoffend and 40 per cent of them did so within six months of being released. Do you consider that to be acceptable? If such a step were to be taken again, would the same procedures apply, or has any work been done to attempt to address the risk to the public?

The Scottish Prison Service told us that none of the prisoners who were released early was tested for Covid and that that was done to protect the public from Covid. If the same situation were to arise again, would that change?