Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will just finish this up, then I will give way, if that is okay. The amendment requires the Lord President only to “have regard to” the same sheriff or judge sitting in both sets of proceedings. It does not compel him to do so.

For victims whose suffering is made worse by legal system abuse, amendment 78 is necessary, and I also think that it is fairly straightforward.

I am happy to give way.

Absolutely. It is part of the difficulty being faced by victims and complainers in such cases. We have also seen in the civil courts how one of the parties—in some cases, the male abuser—can have access to funds and is able to pay for legal representation to pursue cases that might not, on the face of it, have much merit, simply to weaponise the process against the person with regard to whom they are facing criminal allegations. In those cases, the female victims often struggle to find the resources—whether it be legal aid or their own—to defend such actions, which might relate to, say, small claims or to divorce or child custody matters.

Will the member take an intervention?

Can you share it with us?

On that point, I have been raising this directly with you, with the Government and with others for almost two years. As an MSP, I do not have the capacity to launch a consultation. The legislation in front of us is supposed to be a victims bill and if there had been a will from Government from the outset, perhaps some of that work on amending the legislation would have been done by the Government. The Government has done that in the past and we have seen quite dramatic amendments to other legislation, often at the last minute and without consultation. It seems to me that there is no real appetite for this.

If you would like, yes.

I have six amendments in the group. One aspect of the criminal justice system that causes significant distress to victims is plea deals. We all understand and accept the premise of those: when an accused pleads guilty at an early stage, it spares victims from giving evidence. We do not oppose plea deals per se—they have long been an important feature in the justice system. Our concerns are about the way in which they are sometimes used and the general lack of transparency around those decisions.

My six amendments in the group—amendments 79 to 84—all relate to plea deals. Amendments 79 to 81 deal with solemn criminal proceedings, which cover more serious cases involving a jury, and amendments 82 to 84 deal with summary cases, which are of a less serious nature.

Counterintuitively, I will start with amendment 81 and talk only to the three amendments relating to solemn cases in order to avoid repetition, because my amendments relating to summary cases seek to do exactly the same thing in the lower courts.

Amendment 81 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to inform victims if a plea deal was reached with an accused. Amendment 80 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to take the views of victims into account before agreeing a plea deal. Amendment 79 would require Crown Office prosecutors in solemn cases to discuss plea deals with victims and would give victims a veto on any plea deal decision. For what it is worth, I believe that amendment 79 overreaches, as it could be seen as meddling in the independence of the prosecution service, but I lodged it to demonstrate the seriousness of victims’ concerns and to seek the Government’s views more generally.

As I said, amendments 82 to 84 seek to do exactly the same things as amendments 79 to 81, but they would apply to summary cases.

I have been raising issues about plea deals for many years—predating my time as a politician. In one particularly shocking case, it took four years for the Crown Office to prosecute the perpetrator of extreme and prolonged domestic violence. The victim suffered relentless retraumatisation as her abuser used his lawyers to play the system. Despite all that, four years down the line, he was offered a very favourable plea deal—the seriousness of some charges was watered down, and other charges were dropped altogether. In that case, the victim was not even told about the plea deal, which, in my view, was an affront to justice.

More recently, the BBC broadcast a “Disclosure” documentary called “Surviving Domestic Abuse”, which put a spotlight on the culture of plea deals in domestic abuse cases. The documentary featured seven cases and five plea deals. Again, solid charges were either watered down or dropped altogether, and victims were not informed. It was due only to the presence of a BBC journalist in court that they knew what had happened. In one of the cases, there was video evidence of a woman being choked by her male partner. It was black and white—he was guilty all day long, in my opinion—but the charge was dropped from the indictment. That was perhaps for convenience; it was certainly not in the interests of justice.

On behalf of the brave women who featured in the documentary, I raised the issue of plea deals with the cabinet secretary in the chamber last March—almost 12 months ago—and she said that she would be willing to engage with me on any amendments that I wanted to lodge. Last December, I raised the issue directly with John Swinney, and the First Minister also said that the Government would look at my amendments. I believe that the Government has had sufficient time to do so. Fixing the problems is long overdue.

I accept that amendment 79 and the corresponding amendment for summary cases overreach by giving victims a veto, which could be harmful to the justice process, so I do not intend to press amendment 79 or to move amendment 82—if it is not premature to say that now.

However, amendment 80 is entirely reasonable, because it would give victims a voice and the right to be informed while stopping short of providing a veto. If the Government does not like amendment 80, surely it must deem amendment 81 and the corresponding amendment for summary proceedings to be acceptable. All that the amendments would do would be to inform victims if plea deals were struck and inform them of the details. In many of the horrific cases in which I have been involved, the deals have been hugely harmful and distressing, and being deprived of that basic information, as commonly happens, can often add to that distress.

My amendments would go some way towards tackling a recurring problem in the justice system: a lack of transparency. Disclosing that basic information might even give prosecutors greater cause to consider the impact of plea deals and whether what they are agreeing to is, in fact, reasonable and in the interests of justice. Basic transparency is the very least that victims deserve.

I move amendment 79.

I am sure that, as a former member of the Criminal Justice Committee, Jamie Greene will recall, as I do, the heartbreaking testimony of countless victims, including those who talked about being bystanders at their own cases. Does he agree that, if the Government were serious about this victims bill helping those victims with their experiences of the justice system, a little bit of transparency would go a very long way?

Will the member give way?

I have spent a couple of years engaging with the cabinet secretary, and it is sometimes very hard to read between the lines and decipher what meaning is implied. I do know that she is—