Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I think that the committee would agree with you on the need for better data; we would find that extremely helpful.

Dr Graham, when you spoke initially, you mentioned the need for clarity and more detail on the public interest test in particular, but perhaps also more generally. Could you answer the part of my question about whether there are lessons to be learned from comparable European countries and jurisdictions? The Government’s aim appears to be to reduce prisoner numbers and to ensure that the most serious offenders are in custody. Bail is given to people who have not been convicted of anything, yet. Do you think that there are lessons to be learned, given that the approach taken in Scotland appears to be different from the one taken in many other European countries?

Thank you.

That is very helpful—thank you.

It is not clear whether the effect of the legislation will be to change the number of people who are on bail, and it is not really clear how the public safety test will operate.

Fergus McNeill said that bail is used in Scotland quite differently from the way that it is used in other European countries. Proportionately, Scotland has the highest number of people in jail and, within that, the highest number of people on remand—the figure is now approaching 30 per cent, which is extremely high. I ask all the witnesses to comment, if they wish to do so, on the arguments for and against the approach that we take in Scotland, in which we send quite a lot of people into the prison system on remand. Are there lessons to be learned from other comparable jurisdictions?

On transcripts, I suspect that one of the issues is cost, but we really should be provided with that information. The committee is spending a huge amount of its time talking and asking about the issue, and there does not seem to be a willingness to share information.

As, I think, we will all remember, we discussed virtual trials at length during the bill process. We asked repeatedly for the kind of information that Rona Mackay is talking about, but it was not forthcoming. It took us an awful lot of time to get any information. I think that we concluded that far less was happening than was being presented, and I suspect that that is still the case.

As a committee, we should be concerned about being bounced into making permanent decisions when the evidence base is not there, so we should be robust in our correspondence with the cabinet secretary. We should outline the history and say that it is not that we would object to the proposed change in principle, but that it needs to be evidenced and subject to democratic scrutiny, given the serious and considerable implications for the justice system.

Whether we do that now or at a later stage, I think that we would want to put that in writing and go back to the point about why we are asking for that information.

Emma, have you had the opportunity to consider the concept of public safety? Do you have thoughts on how it might be better defined? Are you concerned that bringing in a new concept, with a lack of certainty about what the law is, might make things more difficult for victims?