Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is the point that I hoped to make. I felt that, last week, some of the questions implied that the situation was about the clinical override bringing down the risk to that in the LS/CMI. However, it is as likely, if not more likely, that, if the LS/CMI indicates low risk but professional judgment suggests higher risk, a higher risk is put in. Do you accept that point, cabinet secretary?

Thank you for that, Stuart—

I think that you have called me Fulton Mackay once or twice as well, Rona.

I hope that the witnesses—and the deputy convener—do not mind my going back a wee bit, like Collette Stevenson did. I want to return to an earlier line of questioning by my colleague Rona Mackay to Stuart Murray.

Stuart, I am sure that you will be used to the points that you have made being picked up on—I apologise for doing so, too. I should say that I really like your tenacity in your work for people who are accused—it seems that you would be a really good lawyer to have.

On that note, however, I disagree with your comment that the accused should have the right to see their accuser. I can understand that from a general, theoretical point of view, but we have heard evidence in committee on a number of occasions and in various evidence-gathering sessions indicating that that can be a really traumatic experience for the accuser in some of the most heinous crimes that have been reported. I appreciate that they are only alleged crimes at that stage, and I understand the complexities around that.

However, it has become clear to me that there is also an issue of access to justice. We have talked a wee bit about access to justice for the accused and whether they are not getting a fair hearing or to have a trial in the old-fashioned, pre-Covid way—although that can include virtual elements, too. If a victim—an alleged victim, rather—is so scared or traumatised that he or she cannot give evidence to the best of their ability, that is another aspect to consider. I get that there is a balance to be struck on that. I wanted to come back to you on that point.

Do you not see any merit at all in continuing virtual hearings, for example for domestic abuse offences, sexual offences or serious assault offences? If you do not, do you see any way to bring in some sort of hybrid format? That might be like the one that we use in the Parliament, for example. Could such a format be brought in to capture—almost—both elements: ensuring that the accused gets a fair hearing and ensuring that the witnesses, who have perhaps experienced really traumatic things, get to give their evidence in the best way possible?

Thanks, convener. Just for the record, it is Fulton MacGregor. I get “Fulton Mackay” all the time.

I hear what you are saying. Nevertheless, in the committee’s defence, some of us were members of the Justice Committee in the previous session of Parliament, and we are well aware of what was available pre-pandemic for remote contributions. Some of us were involved in the consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill, for example.

I accept what you say, but we are now hearing in evidence that, because of the pandemic, completely virtual trials are now possible. We have heard from witnesses that, in some of the most extreme cases, it can be hard for someone even to go into the same building as the accused person, even if they are in a different room and there are safeguards in place. Some of those crimes involve emotional abuse, and even being in the same building can have an impact.

I do not want to go back over the issue—I can feel the convener’s eyes burning into me, and I know that we are short on time. I was simply making the point—perhaps you can come back to this in a later answer—that, for some individuals in some cases, fully virtual trials, which mean that witnesses are nowhere near the building at all, may be appropriate.

Rather than going back to Stuart Murray at this point, I will pass back to the convener so that he can decide what he wants to do next.

I take that point.

My question, which picks up on Jamie Greene’s point, is probably for Dr Scott.

Early release for people convicted of domestic abuse offences will be really worrying for victims; I hear what is being said in that regard. However, I am sure that Dr Scott would agree that domestic abuse sentences are not usually very long in any case. In my view, the issue is the rehabilitation of those people. I worked in the field previously. If we are talking about early release for specific groups of offenders such as those involved in domestic abuse, would it be helpful if their early release was not only highlighted, so that victims could be prepared—Kate Wallace made that point well—but attached to some sort of work programme that is effective and actually works?

The Scottish Government recently invested further in criminal justice social work services, which was a welcome move given the pandemic situation. What does Dr Scott think about my suggestion in respect of early release for such prisoners?

I am happy with what has been said. We need to bring in the cabinet secretary for his update after three months of the provision’s being in place. I am happy with that timescale.

Thanks, convener. I had a lot of questions on child welfare reporters and contact centres, but the issues have been extensively covered, so in the interests of time I am happy to leave it at that.

Thanks, convener. I had—[Inaudible.]—I think Judith wants to come in.