Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a good question. We are probably not yet ready to answer it completely, but I will give some background information. We are working with Police Scotland, the Crown Office, Rape Crisis Scotland and other organisations that have been involved in developing domestic abuse courts, which, so far, are in Edinburgh, the Highlands and Islands and Dumfries and Galloway. Evaluation has still to be undertaken, but Crown Office statistics from earlier this year showed that the number of charges related to domestic abuse last year was at its highest since 2015-16.

Again, it is important to reflect that specialist courts are a matter for the judiciary to consider. If the judiciary and Lady Dorrian indicate a willingness to progress specialist courts, we will consider what is needed. There are areas in which domestic abuse courts operate, and there are areas in which domestic abuse cases are dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Those are all operational decisions for the Scottish courts.

The date on which the new domestic abuse offence will have been in operation for three full years is 31 March 2022, which will trigger the need for the Government to publish a statutory report that details the qualitative and quantitative information about the operation of the new offence and the experience of victims. That will probably be the most useful publication in answering Jamie Greene’s question.

Willie Cowan might be able to say whether there has been informal feedback from the different partners.

I think that it has to be live. The governance group will decide what to look at, but you have made a very reasonable point. Referral to the High Court, when the specialist court does not think that it has the required sentencing powers, would replicate what happens in other spheres.

The basic point is about ensuring that there is no confusion, overlap or duplication. Knowing the people who are on the governance review group—not least Willie Cowan, although he can mention others—I think that they will have that in their minds. It is not in anybody’s interest, especially in the context of the current backlog, for us to duplicate anything. We want to make things as efficient as possible at the same time as making sure that justice is delivered and is done in a trauma-informed and victim-centred way. I therefore think that the group will be considering that issue. It might be looked at by one of the working groups that could be set up to look at various aspects; however, that will be for the group to decide. Willie might want to come in on that.

Convener, you will have seen in the letter that I sent to the Lord Justice General, which I copied to you and the committee, the draft remit of the governance group. I expect that that will be finalised when the group meets, as I have said, next week.

I can provide some details—I am happy to provide the relevant correspondence if committee members would like me to do so. The discussions next week will cover the work plan, the timetable and the identification of any working groups that the governance group wants to set up to look at specific areas that the report covers. The committee will be aware of the breadth of the report.

As the committee will also be aware, there is a very public timetable commitment, which is outlined in the programme for government, to legislate in the current session of Parliament for a statutory right to lifelong anonymity for complainers in sexual offence cases. We will also give serious consideration to the Dorrian review’s other recommendations, including the potential introduction of specialist courts and what the implications of that would be.

As I said, I expect that the group will work at pace and provide regular updates to the national criminal justice board and the Lord Justice Clerk’s review group. I also expect that the committee will be kept fully up to date.

I have one final point, convener. Your question touched on the idea of duplication. As I mentioned, we have, this week, initiated a consultation on the not proven verdict, which involves a number of related issues such as the size of a jury and the majority that is required for a conviction. Many of Lady Dorrian’s recommendations, a number of which would require legislation to take them through, will start to come in at that point, once we have undertaken that consultation and we have a way forward. Those issues are not all of a piece, but they are certainly interrelated, so we would want to take them through in concert. That might give the committee an idea of the timetable that we are looking at.

I will say this now, and I am sure that it will come up again. We know of about 22 pieces of legislation that we have to take through, and there will be more that others will bring forward. There is a crowded landscape and we cannot do everything at once. We are trying to do some of those things as quickly as possible while taking the time to consider them properly.

Before you do, Willie, I would hope that we are going to say the same thing. That would be good.

Katy Clark makes an important point. I have previously mentioned to the committee forensic medical examination suites, which we are trying to roll out across the country. They give those who have been traumatised by sexual offences a very different experience in the way that they are initially treated and dealt with.

I have also said that the current court infrastructure is of a different time. I am not going to pretend that we can completely recast the physical built infrastructure of the entire justice system overnight. We certainly cannot do it by holding back on dealing with the backlog. I cannot assume what the judiciary will propose that the specialist courts will look like, but we want to make sure that, wherever we are making changes, we can push through with a trauma-informed approach.

Although I mentioned a specific case, it is true that there is great public demand for court proceedings to take place in public, transparently and with everybody there. There are therefore different pressures that apply, but we are trying to deal with them, as is evidenced by some of the stuff that we have done already, such as giving evidence by commission, video-recorded interviews and forensic medical examinations. We are trying to make the system as victim centred as we can.

Do you want to add to that, Willie?

The LCM for the Judicial Review and Courts Bill relates to a minor provision in the schedule to the bill. The policy provision is uncontroversial and relates to fines enforcement. There is a provision in the schedule that will mean that the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service will be able to enforce a new type of financial penalty that has been imposed in England and Wales through the online justice procedure.

Cross-border enforcement of fines has been a long-standing approach in the nations of the United Kingdom. The UK and Scottish Governments agree on the need for cross-border enforcement as a normal part of the operation of their respective justice systems. The approach relates to the fact that people in the UK can move between nations. That means that enforcement in Scotland is needed when, as in this case, a person who receives a financial penalty through the new online procedure moves to Scotland.

However, there is an issue that is worth mentioning to the committee. The Scottish Government considers that the provision in question necessitates an LCM, whereas the UK Government believes that it does not. As the LCM explains, fines enforcement is a devolved matter, so we consider that any additional provision that adds responsibilities for the SCTS to enforce fines that have been imposed in England and Wales is a devolved matter. That is why the LCM is necessary. The UK Government disagrees. It argues that the provision in the schedule could not be included in a Scottish bill, which means that it is outwith competence.

The Scottish Parliament agrees with the Scottish Government’s position, which is why the LCM is before the committee.

We believe that the purpose of the relevant provision, which is to empower the SCTS to enforce fines that have been imposed in England and Wales, is a devolved matter, and that it is only because of the manner in which the provision is drafted that it is outwith competence. The purpose of the provision is clearly a devolved matter. As the LCM was accepted for lodging, that means that the Scottish Parliament agrees that the necessity for an LCM has been triggered by the bill.

It is important to stress that the LCM does not mean that the Scottish Government supports the entire policy content of the bill. I am aware of other provisions in the bill that have generated some controversy, such as the proposed changes to the operation of judicial review powers. The LCM is very narrow and relates only to the fines enforcement issue.

I and my officials would be happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much, convener. I am, once again, grateful to the committee for the opportunity to meet. I will make some remarks on the areas that the clerks have asked me to cover, with the intention of trying to answer some questions, which might help with timekeeping.

As we are all aware, the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic have placed huge pressure on the criminal justice system and the people who work in it. Our justice partners have worked incredibly hard and creatively to adapt to the sustained and complex challenges presented. I put on record my gratitude for their efforts.

The backlog of cases is one of the areas that I have been asked to cover. Its impact on victims and their perception of justice cannot be underestimated. The additional £50 million that has been made available in this financial year via the recover, renew and transform programme is being used to increase capacity across the justice system. That includes the recruitment of additional staff, greater use of digital tools and improved support for victims and witnesses. That support is being extended into the next financial year, as was outlined in the budget last week.

The budget delivers more than £3.1 billion for justice in 2022-23 to strengthen and reform our vital front-line services. That includes £188 million in additional investment, which amounts to a 7 per cent increase, in recognition of the challenges that the pandemic has presented and continues to present.

That figure includes £40.5 million for the Scottish Police Authority, which maintains our commitment to protect the police resource budget in real terms each year for the entirety of this parliamentary session; £9.5 million to support the modernisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which includes investment to allow it to expand its work on fire prevention and fire safety with vulnerable households; £4 million for victims services measures to tackle violence against women and girls and support for the justice system to respond to victims’ needs; and £53.2 million for the renewal and transformation of the justice sector, which includes court recovery, addressing trial backlogs and expanding community justice services.

We are starting to see some signs of recovery. I welcome the additional 16-court capacity that was introduced from September. Statistics from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service appear to show a positive impact from that. There is a long way to go, and, as with much of society, the justice system’s recovery from the pandemic will take time.

Last month, I participated—as many members of the committee did, I think—in a debate that focused on men’s violence against women and girls and our efforts to tackle the devastating impacts that it causes. Right at the centre of that discussion is the justice response to gender-based violence.

Recently, I have been in discussions with the chief constable on spiking, which is a despicable, cowardly act. From what we know, spiking is committed mainly by men, and we understand that the victims are mostly women. It is yet another example of the disproportionate impact that men’s offending has on women. I am reassured that our legislation on the matter is robust and that Police Scotland is actively pursuing every report of spiking. It has established a gold command in the area.

Last week, I convened a second round-table discussion with justice partners and the health, education and night-time economy sectors to discuss the issue further. I am reassured by the concerted efforts of our cross-sector partners to better understand the problem and to take appropriate measures to address spiking, including the development of standard reporting protocols, consistent messaging and training to raise awareness, and investigation of the use of drug-testing strips for drinks. I am keen to ensure that our preventative approach continues through our equally safe strategy and Police Scotland’s strategic approach to investigating and preventing these issues.

I have announced that, after careful consideration, we will move forward with the immediate establishment of a Scottish Government-led governance group that comprises key stakeholder interests to enable progress on and detailed consideration of the individual and collective recommendations in the Lord Justice Clerk’s review group report on improving the management of sexual offence cases. In coming to that determination, I am very much of the mind that what is required is a whole-system approach to both consideration and delivery.

Although the recommendation to provide complainers in sexual offence cases with a lifelong right to anonymity is free-standing and we have committed to legislate to give effect to it in the current session of Parliament, many of the recommendations cross multiple interests, and it is self-evident that, given the many dependencies, we will require the support of key partners in order to deliver change. I think that that came through in the evidence that the committee has just heard from the police. It is important to reflect on the fact that the report was the product of a cross-justice review group and to recognise that ownership, responsibility and delivery rest with us all.

I expect that the group will move at pace, with the first meeting taking place next week, but with an equal focus on ensuring that there is recognition of wider and related Scottish Government initiatives.

We all recognise that, if we get this right, the report has the potential to drive transformational change across the system, beyond sexual offence cases. There is a great deal of cross-sector consensus, as was demonstrated by several statements of support at the time of publication, and my view is that the recommendations can be used as a catalyst for whole-system transformation. That is the intention.

I appreciate that the committee is keen to see progress on the recommendations. However, given the complexity of the proposed changes, careful consideration is essential. I assure the committee that I consider the recommendations to be a priority. Looking ahead, I note that we will hold a consultation on sexual offences and victims’ rights in the spring, which will cover many of the recommendations. Some of them can be pursued now, and we have supported a two-year pilot project to visually record rape complainers’ police statements, which you have heard about. That was named in Lady Dorrian’s report. Working closely with Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Rape Crisis Scotland, we have enabled the initiative to become a reality in Edinburgh, in the Highlands and Islands and in Dumfries and Galloway.

As of 12 December 2021, 266 VRIs have been carried out, with a total of 247 complainers. However, no cases have proceeded to trial, so we do not have data throughput for evaluation purposes. We want—as the police do—the initiative to be available across the whole of Scotland in the future, and we have secured collective agreement to start preparing to scale it up beyond the pilot. There is a clear direction to move as quickly as we can without compromising the training or the skill that is required of those who deliver VRIs for court use.

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service led the recover, renew and transform workstream, which championed the introduction of virtual summary trials. It worked closely with the third sector, which has enthusiastically supported the innovation. I met Sheriff Principal Pyle last week, and I look forward to receiving his report from the virtual trials national project board and considering next steps.

On Monday, as the committee will know, we launched a consultation on the not proven verdict and related reforms, in recognition of what we believe is a strong case for its abolition. However, these are complex issues, and many stakeholders have expressed principled objections to a move to having two verdicts or have highlighted the interconnectedness of the system, including the potential interaction with the jury majority, so we must consider the issues carefully.

As we discussed at our recent cross-party round table, as a Government, we take very seriously the concerns that some stakeholders have about how the corroboration rule may affect access to justice for survivors of crimes that are committed in private. The consultation therefore also contains questions on that matter.

We are committed to ensuring that victims’ rights are at the centre of our justice system. Over the past five years, we have invested £88 million in victims services, and we recently announced details of our new victim-centred approach fund, which is worth at least £30 million over three years and will provide support to victims organisations across Scotland. We are working closely with victims and support organisations to scope out the role of the new victims commissioner. Furthermore, we have already strengthened the victim notification scheme and are committed to undertaking a detailed review early next year.

There is much to do. My colleague Ash Regan will take forward a strategic, longer-term, evidence-based assessment of the totality of the experience of women in relation to the justice system, with a view to understanding where innovation, better data collection and learning, perhaps from different jurisdictions, could help to reform or redesign aspects of it to better meet women’s needs.

Over recent months, in collaboration with our justice partners, we have been developing a new justice strategy for Scotland. In the new year, I will set out a new vision for justice and take forward what I believe will be transformative action in the current session of Parliament and beyond.

As we emerge from the pandemic, it is right that we should look at how we renew our public services and build on the lessons that we have learned, in respect of both the progress that has been made and the opportunities that might exist to provide greater resilience in critical services. We must continue to be steadfast in our zero tolerance of men’s violence against women and girls and the relentless challenge of the spectrum of behaviours that enable it.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

You are right. We have already produced one thematic report, which details 11 or 14 recommendations—I cannot remember exactly how many—that we can take forward right away. Another tranche of recommendations that do not require legislation can also be taken forward right away, and we will continue to do that. Some of the recommendations are for other agencies, such as the police, and they will take time to do what they will do.

Some governance arrangements are already in place before the governance group is established. We have looked at that, and progress is being made already, where possible. Willie Cowan can give more detail about that.

I will be a little cagey on this. When there are proposals to change the courts, the decisions on that rest with the judiciary and not with me. We tend to wait to see how the judiciary is approaching issues such as the establishment of specialist courts before we get too involved. It is now easier for us to talk about the issue because Lady Dorrian has made that recommendation and we are not being seen as trying to determine how the court system should be run. The governance group will consider the issue, starting from next week.

I especially do not want to talk about how we might treat jurors, because that is for the judiciary to talk about. However, your point about trauma-informed approaches is important. The point that I was trying to make earlier was that, in addition to all the different pieces of legislation, I hope that we will achieve a justice system that is trauma informed and victim centred from end to end. There is a danger that those phrases can become buzzwords that people throw around, so the challenge is how we can make that real. We are undertaking training with the NHS to try to ensure that it happens.

We had a good discussion on the issue recently at the victims task force. We want to get to a stage at which that approach applies in all the different elements of the system. I call it a system but, as I know you are aware, there are areas such as the judiciary and the courts that are distinct and independent. In many respects, the police have a role that is independent from ministers. However, we want an end-to-end process that is victim centred, that focuses on people who have suffered crimes and that is trauma informed.

I will give just one example, although it does not relate to the issue that Rona Mackay asked about—I have explained why I do not want to go into too much detail on that. One survivor—the chap was not a victim; he was the father of somebody who was murdered—said that, when he had to go to court and sit a couple of feet away from the family of the person who was accused of murdering his son, that felt off to him in so many ways.

The justice system has been focused on trying to get justice delivered, if you like. The way in which victims are treated and the trauma-informed approach have to feature much more in its thinking. I generally support the idea of people being trauma informed, but it is not for me to say whether jurors should be trained or given background information.

I am afraid I cannot tell you what the deputy chief constable meant. Like you, I think that he was perhaps talking about when we move forward on the gender recognition legislation. That may be the most obvious thing to say on what he meant, but I do not know. The police will be watching this meeting—not in any sinister way—and I am sure that they can provide a response.

I think that the police are aware—as you are hinting—of the complexities of the matter and of the dangers in the situation. The same is true of the Scottish Prison Service. The approach that the police take is a very sensitive one. They are sensitive both to the human rights of the people involved and to the safety of those involved. Your basic point concerns somebody trying to use the system in some way; I think that the police are very well aware of that. They are also aware of the individual rights of people.

In any event, it may be for DCC Graham to come back and clarify exactly what he meant by his comments, rather than it being for me to say.

I want to come back to the member’s comment about the response that he had received from DCC Graham about notification of victims. The DCC said that, although the situation has not yet arisen, the police will have to look at it. That is the right approach, and it is consistent with taking into account the rights of victims and ensuring that public safety and human rights are at the forefront. You are right to say that the police have not encountered this situation yet, but they will have to give some thought to how they will deal with it, and I support the police in doing so.