Seòmar agus comataidhean

In my line of questioning, I am trying to understand what good this bill might do, what the gaps are and whether, if we were not doing what was in the bill, there is anything else that would need to be resolved. Would you be able to provide the committee with any details about the length of time that officers have been waiting for their court trials and so on?

Lastly, on the question whether an independent body is the answer, this is my concern in that respect—and I have to say that I do not have a view on this, myself. An example suggested in our papers relates to someone making a complaint because a police officer has used too much restraint. That must be a difficult judgment for anyone but, if you have no experience of restraint, how can you make a judgment on that sort of complaint against a police officer? That is the question that I have with regard to whether a completely independent body is the answer.

But does it prejudice the court case, then?

That is covered.

Would any other witnesses like to contribute to that?

I was not asking about that. I was just asking whether you accept that there would need to be some representation from the police. Surely there needs to be some police expertise within such an independent body to understand the role of a police officer.

I am just aware of your answers to the questions about the standards to which staff are held compared with police officers—what you have said about that is loud and clear. Do the public make the same distinction when they phone Police Scotland, get a staff member and are not happy about it?

David Kennedy and Chief Superintendent Hay, is there anything in this bill that you fully support and which you think is useful?

That is helpful—thank you. Dr Lennon, is there anything that you want to add?

In cases where police officers go before the court and are not convicted, should any other misconduct issues related to those cases automatically be dropped? I hear what you are saying: you do not want to do things the other way round, as Sharon Dowey has suggested, because it might prejudice a court case. Obviously, we would be talking about a higher court here. If there is no conviction, why should the police continue with a misconduct disciplinary procedure against that police officer? After all, the court has already determined the matter.