Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not know whether the Faculty of Advocates—

In the previous session, we heard evidence about the central marking of cases and the decisions that the Crown makes as to whether to oppose bail. In particular, there was a suggestion that procurators fiscal should be able to use their discretion more in the courts, rather than having to go up a managerial chain and impose central policy.

We will be meeting, and hearing evidence from, the Crown next week. I am interested in any thoughts that you have about changes that need to be made to practice or, indeed, process or policy in Crown decisions. You might feel that you do not have expertise in that and do not have an opinion.

My final question is whether you support the inclusion of the public safety test in the bill. You spoke a little about that already. Would that be a helpful addition to the bill, or would it make no difference whatsoever and, possibly, create uncertainty? We have heard that it might lead to appeals as we tried to clarify what that provision would mean.

David Mackie, you made suggestions about additional provisions that could be put into the bill that might be of assistance. If there is going to be a test of that nature, do you have any suggestions about how we could define it?

I want to go back to the beginning of the bail process. We have heard about the importance of providing sufficient information to the court in relation to bail decisions, and we have heard that the social work provision that we would ideally want to be in place is often just not there. How does that interface with your work? The police are not social workers, obviously, but presumably you have to go some way down that path to ensure that there is sufficient information. Could you comment on not just the resource implications but the extent to which you are able to go down that path to ensure that there is a holistic understanding of the situation when the court is making a decision?

Thank you.

My second question is about virtual custodies, which is an issue that we have been discussing over an extended period. The Scottish Government might come forward with firm proposals on that at a later date. Given what Joanne McMillan said and expressed so clearly about the importance of discussions—of speaking to all the parties, including the police, the social workers and the procurator fiscal—and the value of face-to-face discussion and talking, what are the circumstances in which you think that virtual custodies would work?

I will start with Joanne McMillan, because she has been talking about some of that.

I do not know whether the Law Society of Scotland would like to come in on that. It might be something to consider after today. Do you have any initial thoughts?

Yes, with a greater emphasis on complainers.

When might it be appropriate to remand a person who is accused of a non-violent offence? You spoke about sexual offences and violent offences; are there other situations in which it might be appropriate to remand someone?

We would be grateful for the information that you refer to.

Professor McAra, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the issue that has just been raised. However, as a committee, we also have to grapple with the black letter of the law. With regard to the bill, we first have to ensure that we agree with the Scottish Government’s overriding policy objectives, and then we have to decide whether what is in the text that will be put to the Scottish Parliament will deliver those objectives. Do you have thoughts on that, too? Do you think that the words that the legislation will contain are likely to be implemented by the courts in the way that the Scottish Government intends?

The evidence that we got from the pilot was that a very small number of cases had gone ahead, but there was a very high number of acquittals. Far more people were found not guilty than we would normally have expected. That was a very small sample, so we could not take much from it. However, the evidence that we have had on domestic abuse cases in particular suggests that virtual trials are leading to more people being found innocent rather than more people being found guilty. The concern had previously been that the accused would not get a fair trial, but the evidence that we have had has, if anything, been surprising, which means that we need even more information before making any further decisions.

As Jamie Greene said, that reinforces the fact that we need to lay down a marker that we will not agree to permanent changes unless the evidence base is there, and that we want to see the evidence over a period of time, because the proposed changes would be permanent and could have major implications for cases.

The witnesses will be aware that the bill will bring in a new concept of public safety, which is not something that the criminal courts have dealt with before. There is concern about a lack of clarity about the concept and the potential for lots of court appeals and arguments about what it means. It might be helpful if it was better defined in the bill. Kate, is the introduction of the concept helpful? Do you have thoughts on how it might be better defined?