Seòmar agus comataidhean

Questions and answers

Parliamentary questions can be asked by any MSP to the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The questions provide a means for MSPs to get factual and statistical information.

Written questions must be answered within 10 working days (20 working days during recess)
Other questions such as Topical, Portfolio, General and First Minister's Question Times are taken in the Chamber

Urgent Questions aren't included in the Question and Answers search. There is a SPICe fact sheet listing Urgent and emergency questions.

Find out more about parliamentary questions

Criathragan Hide all filters

Displaying 380 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S3W-12401

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive what powers the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has to determine what is defined as an operational matter for Chief Constables.

Question reference: S3W-12562

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force have been (a) disclosed in the first instance, (b) refused in the first instance, (c) disclosed after review and (d) refused after review.

Nineteen requests for information, made under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, have resulted in information being released, while eight have been refused. Two requests resulted in partial disclosure. To date, four requests for review have been received and, in each case, the original decision to withhold information was found to have been correct.

In addition, in one case the SCCRC did not hold the information requested and, in another, the information requested was obtained from another source.

Question reference: S3W-12565

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force, referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner and ordered to be disclosed have been appealed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Question reference: S3W-12504

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds for appeal.

The information requested is set out in the following table.

Number of applications received by the SCCRC, broken down by main grounds of review - 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008

Ground of Review	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04
110 Day Rule	0	0	0	0	0
Advanced Technology	1	3	0	1	0
Change in the Law	1	0	1	0	2
Change of Witness Testimony	2	0	0	0	0
Commission''s Powers Required	0	0	0	1	0
Comparative Justice	0	0	0	0	0
Conspiracy	0	0	0	1	2
Credibility/Reliability of Evidence	1	3	5	1	9
Credibility/Reliability of Witness	0	0	0	1	3
Defective Representation	23	20	19	19	17
Denies Acting in Concert	0	1	0	0	0
Diminished Responsibility	0	0	4	3	0
Duress	0	0	0	3	0
Excessive Sentence	3	3	0	2	5
False Accusations	0	1	0	1	0
False Confession	0	0	1	0	0
Human Rights Issue	5	2	2	2	2
Illegal Search	0	0	0	1	0
Improper Service of Indictment	0	1	0	0	0
Jury Misconduct	0	1	0	0	0
Lack of Corroboration	1	2	0	2	0
Mental Health Issues	0	0	0	0	0
Misdirection by Trial Judge	1	4	4	6	4
Mistaken Identity	0	0	1	0	1
New Evidence	34	16	12	5	4
New Witness	0	0	3	4	2
Perjury	15	3	3	2	1
Point of Law	1	0	0	0	0
Police Misconduct	4	1	3	7	3
Procedural Irregularity	2	0	2	1	0
Review of Art and Part	1	0	0	0	0
Self Defence	1	0	0	0	0
Sufficiency	0	0	0	2	0
Unfair Trial	10	0	4	9	16
Unreasonable Jury	2	0	4	1	0
Wrong Sentence Imposed	0	0	0	0	0
Wrongful Conviction	0	1	0	2	4
Not Stated	12	7	3	2	7
Totals	=SUM(ABOVE) 120	=SUM(ABOVE) 69	=SUM(ABOVE) 71	=SUM(ABOVE) 79	=SUM(ABOVE) 82

Ground of Review	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08	Total
110 Day Rule	2	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Advanced Technology	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 5
Change in the Law	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 4
Change of Witness Testimony	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Commission''s Powers Required	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Comparative Justice	1	2	1	0	=SUM(LEFT) 4
Conspiracy	0	3	0	2	=SUM(LEFT) 8
Credibility/Reliability of Evidence	27	24	18	13	=SUM(LEFT) 101
Credibility/Reliability of Witness	2	5	3	6	=SUM(LEFT) 20
Defective Representation	9	22	20	19	=SUM(LEFT) 168
Denies Acting in Concert	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Diminished Responsibility	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 7
Duress	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 3
Excessive Sentence	6	7	1	2	=SUM(LEFT) 29
False Accusations	1	4	1	2	=SUM(LEFT) 10
False Confession	1	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 2
Human Rights Issue	2	1	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 16
Illegal Search	0	0	0	0	=SUM(LEFT) 1
Improper Service of Indictment	0	1	0	0	2
Jury Misconduct	1	4	1	1	8
Lack of Corroboration	1	14	0	0	20
Mental Health Issues	1	3	5	1	10
Misdirection by Trial Judge	3	5	2	4	33
Mistaken Identity	0	1	1	1	5
New Evidence	3	3	3	3	83
New Witness	0	0	0	0	9
Perjury	0	0	0	1	25
Point of Law	0	1	0	0	2
Police Misconduct	4	5	0	0	27
Procedural Irregularity	0	0	0	0	5
Review of Art and Part	0	0	0	0	1
Self Defence	1	2	2	0	6
Sufficiency	0	1	1	1	5
Unfair Trial	7	7	17	13	=SUM(LEFT) 83
Unreasonable Jury	1	0	1	1	10
Wrong Sentence Imposed	0	2	0	0	2
Wrongful Conviction	2	2	4	2	=SUM(LEFT) 17
Not Stated	5	3	0	1	=SUM(LEFT) 40
Totals	=SUM(ABOVE) 80	=SUM(ABOVE) 122	=SUM(ABOVE) 81	=SUM(ABOVE) 73	=SUM(LEFT) 777

It should be noted that other grounds of review may subsequently be identified. However the commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.

Question reference: S3W-12507

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive what action can be taken against solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation.

Solicitors are not referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Where the Commission refers a case to the High Court, and the court overturns a conviction on the grounds of defective representation, it may be possible for disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the legal representative concerned. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates are responsible for investigating complaints against solicitors and advocates respectively.

The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) looks into complaints about how the professional bodies handle complaints against legal practitioners. Under the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, the SLSO will be replaced by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commissioner (SLCC). The SLCC will receive complaints about legal practitioners where local resolution between the practitioner and client has been attempted but has proven unsuccessful. The SLCC will investigate complaints about service while the professional bodies will continue to address concerns relating to conduct. We anticipate that the new body will become operational in late 2008.

Question reference: S3W-12505

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive how many appeals against convictions have been referred to the high court in each year since 1999, broken down by grounds of appeal.

The information requested is provided in the following table.

Conviction Referrals from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2008

Year	Number of Referrals	Main Grounds
1999-2000	2	1 x New Evidence 1 x Change in Witness Testimony
2000-01	4	2 x Change in the Law 1 x New Evidence 1 x Unfair Trial
2001-02	9	6 x New Evidence 1 x Defective Representation 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt
2002-03	10	4 x New Evidence 2 x Jury Impropriety 1 x Reasonable Doubt as to Applicant''s Guilt 1 x Defective Representation 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Disclosure of Evidence
2003-04	2	2 x New Evidence
2004-05	6	5 x New Evidence 1 x Procedural Irregularity
2005-06	3	1 x Misdirection by Trial Judge 1 x Change in the Law 1 x Insufficiency of Evidence
2006-07	7	2 x Misdirection by Trial Judge 1 x Sentencing Issue 1 x Disclosure of Evidence 1 x Change in the Law 1 x New Evidence 1 x Abuse of Process
2007-08	3	1 x Multiple Referral Grounds 1 x New Evidence 1 x Unreasonable Verdict
Total	=SUM(ABOVE) 46

It should be noted that there may be other grounds of review. The commission''s system records only the main ground in the first instance.

Question reference: S3W-12510

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission holds records of the names of individual solicitors referred to the commission on grounds of defective representation.

Question reference: S3W-12509

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the disclosure of the names of solicitors referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for defective representation would contravene section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Question reference: S3W-12564

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive how many freedom of information requests received by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 came into force and referred to the Scottish Information Commissioner have been disclosed.

Question reference: S3W-12506

Asked by: Bill Kidd, MSP for Glasgow, Scottish National Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Current Status: Answered by Kenny MacAskill on 9 May 2008

To ask the Scottish Executive what constitutes defective representation by solicitors.

The approach to be taken by the courts in cases in which there is an allegation of defective representation is defined in Anderson vs H.M. Advocate (1996 SCCR 114). The then Lord Justice General stated that the conduct of the defence by the accused''s legal representative can only provide a ground for appeal if it deprives the accused of a fair trial. He further stated that this can only have occurred where the conduct was such that the accused''s defence was not presented to the court.

This may be because the accused was deprived of the opportunity to present his defence; or because his legal representative acted contrary to his instructions as to the defence he wished to be put forward; or because of other conduct which, because his defence had not been put, had the effect of denying him a fair trial.

In considering applications for review based on defective representation, the SCCRC applies the above approach.