Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, what was said is not true. The problem I have is that, every time I ask a question, I get management speak in response, and it is the same with the deputy governor. I am trying to get some clarity. Rhona Hotchkiss has been the governor of Cornton Vale, so do you think her assessment is fair?

Is it not the experience that you had?

When you say “information”, do you mean that they had self-identified? Can we be clear about this? Please do not give me any more—

That was the reason.

I know what you are saying but, given that headquarters signed off the decision, what would have been the risk in segregating the prisoner elsewhere? Surely, there would have been no risk. I do not know whether there is a segregation unit in Greenock, but I know that there is one in Barlinnie. What would have been the risk in doing that?

Okay. I am sorry. I was confused by the phrase “second guess”. You are talking about hindsight, with us knowing what we all know now.

Thank you for that.

It is probably important to get to the bottom of that, but I will make observations on the points that Colette Stevenson made. In custody cases, not everybody is held in the same place. That is one of the practical points for lawyers. You have a right to see your lawyer but, if they are not in the same court, as used to be the case, there are practical issues with that.

I am not in favour of proceeding to virtual arrangements unless we can be satisfied that the quality of the connection is good enough. We would need to ask what investment the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is prepared to make in that. As I mentioned previously, in one of the custody hearings that I sat in on, I found the quality really poor. I guess that, even with a high-quality arrangement, we would need to run some pilots to see how it feels for the jury not to be in the room if we run a full trial virtually.

It is interesting to note that there has been no change in the overall conviction rates. That is always a good premise to work on.

I take Colette’s point on the appearance of police officers at court. Whether we use virtual trials or other measures, we have to reduce police time in court. That is one of the reasons why we introduced preliminary trials. The idea of preliminary proceedings was that the witnesses were not required. Prior to that, police officers would be sitting in court. All the disruption and delays in the court system are impacting on police officers, who have to use their rest days and so on. The point about police time is an important one that we can maybe return to, given the other budget discussions that we will be having about the importance of maintaining police numbers. I just wanted to add that in for the record.

I am not against using more virtual approaches in the commissioning of evidence. I am quite impressed with that, because I have seen the Victim Support Scotland facilities, as I mentioned in the victims awareness week debate yesterday. The facilities look like a high-quality and quite satisfactory arrangement. There are other requirements to check—that there is nobody else in the room, for example. It looks pretty solid but, in moving forward to a different arrangement from the physical one, we need to be satisfied that all those things are present.

Can you be clear with me?

I am sorry, but that does not make any sense. If that was one factor, would it be fair to say that the decision maker could, under the policy, have said, “Okay. I have looked at that. This person has self-identified as a woman. I’m going to segregate the person in Barlinnie until we decide where the person is going to go”? Could that have been a decision or not?

They checked that with headquarters.