Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—thanks a lot. I have to say that the previous panel, who were from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the courts, indicated quite strong support for the bill. I do not want to step on Katy Clark’s toes here, as I am sure that she will go into this but, when I asked the previous panel about the progress that they had started to make, their answer seemed to be that there had not been as many virtual trials as we had expected throughout the pandemic, but that there was a clear desire to move in that direction. The previous two witnesses felt that the legislation was needed to allow us to do that. I suppose that I am just following up with you the question that I asked them, but I think that you have answered it.

Thank you. It was important to get on the record some practical examples of how the bill might impact.

Good morning, cabinet secretary—it is still morning. A couple of months ago, or it might have been more than that, the committee met some vulnerable witnesses who had been through the court system, and we heard the harrowing experiences of witnesses and victims—in some cases, alleged victims—of some of the most harrowing offences, which you will know about. The committee committed to making sure that their experiences, although they were given to us privately, would be fed back when we got the opportunity to do so.

On that basis, I want to go back to an earlier part of our discussion when we talked about the evidence that we heard from defence lawyers last week about needing to see the accuser and interpret body language. We have heard that, if people who had experienced such offences presented as confident and capable, things went against them—or, at least, they felt that they did—and that the same happened if they broke down.

It is worth highlighting that context to indicate why I—and, I know, other members—support a move towards having more remote hearings and ensuring that as many vulnerable witnesses as possible do not have to be present in court. The previous evidence session was really good, as it confirmed that the court system would still have the power to have hearings in person if that was appropriate for all parties.

You probably answered the main part of my question in your opening statement and in your responses to my colleague Jamie Greene, but what I want to know is how much the proposed legislation is actually needed to let us move towards a more remote system that protects vulnerable witnesses, particularly in the most high-profile domestic abuse cases. Does the Parliament need to pass the bill to help us meet that objective?

I do not have any specific questions that have not already been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I have a thought, rather than a question. It is obviously not ideal to be in a situation where we are looking to extend these things but I think that we are all in the same boat there. We are living in difficult times and, as was highlighted at the start, the pandemic is still with us, so, in certain areas where people are living closer together, such as prisons, we still need to err on the side of caution.

Yes—just briefly, convener.

I think that we are all a bit worried about the backlog and what it might mean. I hear that from you, and it was really good to hear at the start that you think that we are on track to have the backlog cleared.

I want to ask about other possible solutions or options that you might have in relation to minor offences. How would cases be identified and prioritised if prosecutions of such offences were no longer taken forward?

Given the time period, how will you take into account changes in people’s circumstances? I will give two examples. You have said that those on remand are a priority, but somebody could have already been on remand for longer than the maximum disposal. We would imagine that that would be taken into account.

There are also more minor situations in communities in which people are not remanded. Would there be scope to look at situations that have almost resolved themselves? We know that it happens quite a lot that the accused and the victim repair the situation themselves. Are such circumstances taken into account when you prioritise cases?

Thank you. You have addressed the issue that I was getting at, which was about the public interest in such cases. If people are spending significant periods of time on remand, their situation can change significantly, particularly in cases involving more minor offences.

There is probably more public interest in continuing with more serious cases, because they can involve psychological and emotional abuse, too. That is not the case in more minor cases. I had in mind the example of youth offending. A kid could have been 16 at the time of an offence. If the case has been going on for a long time, they might be 20, by which time they might have repaired some of the issues with their community. I will not labour the point.

Convener, I have a question as well.

I will let Jamie Greene go first.

I apologise, too, convener. When I indicated earlier, I was not sure whether you thought that I wanted to come in or did not want to come in. It was also my fault.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that, before I became an MSP in 2016, this is exactly the sort of work that I did. I am well aware of the LS/CMI system, having used it several times a week or, more likely, several times a day. I did the initial training in 2012, when the system changed. For what it is worth, I think that it is a very good system. Therefore, I might be able to ask some helpful questions on it.

Cabinet secretary, you have spoken a wee bit about this, but do you accept that it is not just the LS/CMI system that is used and that there are a range of risk assessment tools? Perhaps to put members at ease, I point out that you would not just use the LS/CMI system and say, “Computer says yes.” Has that point been made to you when you have been speaking to people?

I agree that the override function is an important part of the LS/CMI. Do the cabinet secretary and his officials accept that the process for using the override is robust? I do not want anybody to think that it is a case of an individual social worker or other worker applying an override and that is it. In most cases, the matter needs to go through several levels of management. The higher-up management will have a higher level of experience. You will have seen from the forms that are completed that a narrative around the justification for the decision in either direction is needed. Will the cabinet secretary join me in offering that reassurance?