Justice 1 Committee, 25 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Official Report 223KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)

Item 2 is on petition PE477, which was submitted by the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation—MOJO. I refer members to the paper that the clerk produced, which summarises the correspondence that has been received and the background to the petition. The correspondence gives members some idea of the exchanges that have taken place between MOJO and the Public Petitions Committee.

First, I invite comments on the petition. I will then invite the committee to consider the action—if any—that it wants to take.

The petition makes a number of valid points. It asks for assistance in

"setting up an aftercare programme in the form of a half way home to help people who have been wrongfully incarcerated".

Such a programme should be available, but there is a gap in provision and the Executive's response up to now has not been satisfactory in any way.

At the meeting of the Public Petitions Committee on 12 November 2003, Mike Watson said that he was

"disappointed with the Executive's response."

I echo that. At that meeting, Mike Watson quoted Dr Adrian Grounds, who wrote:

"the wrongly convicted suffer the kind of trauma experienced by victims of war crimes."

Mike Watson went on to say:

"We should not forget that such people are victims. The Executive's response fails to comprehend that we are dealing with different situations."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 12 November 2003; c 312-313.]

Unfortunately, we are still faced with the situation that Mike Watson's comments reflect. As a society, we do not provide the necessary help and support in cases such as those of Robert Brown and Patrick Hill—members have seen the psychiatric report that is in the papers, which, I think, is the source of the Dr Grounds quotation. There is a gap in provision and the Executive's response has been wholly unsatisfactory. We should do something about the petition—I know that we will discuss that a little later, convener.

I agree with everything that Bill Butler said and want to add one comment. When I was convener of the Justice 2 Committee in the first session of the Parliament, I was approached by a number of individuals who believed that they had suffered a miscarriage of justice. I considered two specific cases and it was clear that there is no real statutory support for people whose convictions are quashed on appeal. In some cases, people would almost have been better treated if they had completed their sentences without the conviction being quashed. We are getting better at supporting ex-offenders, but there seems to be no separate category for those whose convictions are quashed. For example, a chap told me that he had been handcuffed and taken straight back to prison immediately after his conviction had been formally quashed on appeal. I questioned on human rights grounds whether that should have happened and raised my concerns with the previous Minister for Justice.

There are more support issues to consider than just the provision of halfway houses. If we decide to take the matter further, we need to look at the broader picture.

I echo everything that the convener and Bill Butler said. We have a serious responsibility towards individuals who have been wrongfully imprisoned. It is clear from the Executive's response that it does not take that responsibility seriously and has not taken it on board. The situation should be considered in a number of ways. On the issue of aftercare, the briefing paper points out that there is a serious lack of pre-release counselling; people who have said, effectively, that they are not guilty have found serious problems in accessing counselling, yet they are the very people who have a great need for counselling of one kind or another. There certainly appears to be a real gap in the system at present and I would very much welcome the chance to do some work on the matter.

I agree with everything that has been said. A basic principle is involved. One of the toughest sanctions that society can apply to anyone is to deprive them of their liberty. If we get that wrong, we have a responsibility to the wronged individual to right that wrong. That should be done not only through routine compensation but by helping an individual to rebuild their life. If we believe that there are sufficient grounds for establishing a body such as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, we should also recognise that there are individuals who require support and assistance when they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Clearly, there is a serious gap in service provision for wrongfully imprisoned people, which must be addressed.

It is clear that the committee wishes to take the matter further. I will summarise some of the issues that are contained in the briefing paper. There is the issue to which Michael Matheson referred, on how the compensation scheme operates. Compensation is not automatic and individuals must apply for it. The scheme has two different elements and how a person's compensation is gauged is a matter for the Scottish ministers. My understanding is that there is no support for directing people on how to complete the application forms in the first place. Bill Butler referred to the psychiatric report on Paddy Hill, which gives us an insight into mental welfare issues that we may need to address. The issue of housing is also specifically mentioned in the petition. I ask members to consider the action that they would like to take.

I want to reaffirm the comments that members have made. I certainly believe that the issue of wrongfully imprisoned people should be dealt with and I am rather disappointed by the Executive's response to the petition so far. However, in proceeding with the issue, it would be reasonable for us to include it in our general discussion on the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is scope to include the issue within that inquiry. I would be reluctant to have a separate inquiry because I believe that it would be difficult to do that given the time available to the committee and that it would be perfectly possible to include the issue in our rehabilitation inquiry. We can make recommendations on the petition on that basis. I would not necessarily want to adopt immediately the petition's suggestions about having halfway houses and so on. We should explore such matters further before taking a position, and the way to do so is through our inquiry.

We must be careful about how we include the issue of wrongfully imprisoned people in an inquiry that is about whether we can rehabilitate prisoners. The petitioners' position might be that individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned should be treated differently. In fact, some such individuals refuse to go on rehabilitation programmes. One of the cases that I dealt with was in relation to a sexual offence. The prisoner involved refused to go on the STOP programme and that refusal was part of his campaign to demonstrate his innocence.

Therefore, in some cases individuals would not necessarily have been through rehabilitation programmes. We should not infer a direct correlation with other prisoners, although I take Stewart Maxwell's point that we have a heavy work load and need to find a clever way to incorporate work on the petition. We could begin by making our position clear to the Executive in the strongest terms, which would give us further time to think about how we can incorporate the work.

I am more in favour of the second option under paragraph 13a of the paper, which is to pursue the matter with the Minister for Justice in correspondence and to seek the views of an organisation such as Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending, which works with ex-prisoners. We should also seek the views of Helping Offenders Prisoners Families—HOPE—which works with prisoners and their families, because there are consequences for the family if someone is wrongly incarcerated. I would have concerns about including the issue in our inquiry into rehabilitation programmes, because there is a danger that it will become an add-on and that we might not give it the consideration that it deserves.

I agree. I know where Stewart Maxwell is coming from and I accept that his suggestion is one way of dealing with the issue, but it is not the most appropriate way. This issue has been going on for some considerable time. We need to go directly to the Minister for Justice. The suggestions in the petition are appropriate and sensible. I would hope that if we approached her, the Minister for Justice would reconsider the response so far. I agree that we should write to SACRO and HOPE. Option ii under paragraph 13a is to the point, and is a quick and effective way of proceeding. We should press the Executive in the strongest possible terms to close what is an unacceptable gap.

I take the same view. I recommend that we communicate with the Executive in the strongest possible terms. The only thing that stands in the way of my saying that we should hold an inquiry on the issue in its own right is our timetable. It is not that such an inquiry would not be valuable or would not be the right way to go; such an approach probably is the right thing to do given the number of issues involved and their complexity. We would benefit greatly from hearing evidence from a range of sources. We touched on housing, but all sorts of issues are involved, including people's mental health and well-being. The petition would benefit from a small and focused piece of work by the committee, and our timetable is the only thing that is standing in the way of that.

The Executive should be told in no uncertain terms about the feelings of the committee. It should also be told that we are the final resort, and that we are looking to the Executive to take responsibility where it has not been taken in the past. However, we should not rule out the possibility of our coming back to the issue to examine it properly in an inquiry.

I agree that, ideally, we would hold a separate inquiry, but that is just not feasible given our work load. I have a lot of sympathy with Stewart Maxwell's suggestion for dealing with the petition. I would like to pin down the logistics. If we press the Minister for Justice and go for the second option under paragraph 13a, how quickly will we get somewhere? How far might the issue be kicked into the long grass? If we feel that it is being kicked into the long grass, will there be an opportunity—notwithstanding the sensitivities of referring to prisoners when we are talking about people who have been the victims of miscarriages of justice—to look into the subject separately? We might take the views of the petitioners to see whether they would be happy with that as a way forward, given the fact that we cannot hold a separate inquiry. If we do not get anywhere with the minister, we might then have the opportunity to add the matter to our inquiry into rehabilitation programmes, with the strict proviso that it is understood that these people have been prisoners only because they have been the victims of miscarriages of justice.

That was helpful. I will try to summarise what I think that the committee is saying. First, we should write to the minister in strong terms, saying that we support the basis of the petition and that we are dissatisfied with the response because lots of issues need to be addressed and there should be a proper support mechanism for those whose convictions are quashed.

Stewart Maxwell suggested that we include the issue in our inquiry. I propose that, until we receive a reply from the minister, we keep that option open and try to find a way to continue the work. That will give the committee time to consider the remit of the inquiry—we will do that later in the meeting, anyway. It is not impossible for us to chase an issue and raise its profile, as we have in the past, without having to hold an inquiry. For example, we did not hold an inquiry into the petition on asbestos victims, but pursued the matter directly with the Lord President and the petitioners and were able to make progress on it. We also have the facility to appoint reporters if we want to find a way round the problem. I propose that we leave that question open. It would still be possible for the committee to include the issue in its inquiry, if it wanted. However, if it did not feel that that was appropriate, we could find another way of continuing the work.

I agree with what you say about leaving the matter open. My suggestion to incorporate the issue into our inquiry was based on timetabling considerations.

I ask for clarification on what we are writing to the Executive about. The first line of option ii under paragraph 13a in the clerk's paper says that the committee may

"consider whether it supports the petitioner's suggestions".

Are we writing to the Executive in support of the specific suggestion to

"provide assistance in setting up an aftercare programme in the form of a half way home",

or are we writing in broad terms to support the suggestion that people should have some form of aftercare programme, although not necessarily that specific one? I am not saying that that specific suggestion is good or bad; I am saying that I am not in a position to determine whether an aftercare home would be a good thing to provide.

I propose to incorporate in the letter, as issues to be considered, all the comments that are made by the committee. I do not think that, at this stage, we should pin ourselves down to one specific solution, unless Bill Butler has a different view.

We could say that we support the general thrust of the suggestions in the petition. That would leave room for flexibility.

Okay. I confirm that the committee will write to SACRO and HOPE, as Michael Matheson suggested, to get their views on the petition. I will then let the committee see the correspondence.

---

Dangerous Driving and the Law (PE29, PE55, PE299 and PE331)

The next petitions are on dangerous driving and the law. They are petitions PE29, from Alex and Margaret Dekker, and PE55, PE299 and PE331, from Ms Tricia Donegan. Members have a summary of the petitions in their papers. This is the second time that we are being invited to deal with these issues. I invite the committee to comment on the substance of the petitions.

All the petitions are long standing and were considered by the Justice 1 Committee in the previous parliamentary session. Dangerous driving is an issue that was given serious consideration by the previous Justice 1 Committee, which even went as far as questioning ministers directly on the matter. Although progress appears to have been made in some areas, a number of the issues that the committee raised with the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Executive are still outstanding. In my view, we should continue to pursue the matter until we get the result that we hope for, which is a full response to all the points that have been made to the committee.

Of the options that are given in the clerk's paper, I support option a, which has five clauses that list the information that is outstanding. I see no reason why we cannot also adopt option b.

I agree with Michael Matheson. We should not hesitate to pursue both options, given that both of them are appropriate, sensible and absolutely necessary.

I agree with all that, but I have a question for the convener about the issue that is raised in paragraph 9 of the clerk's paper. Obviously, you have met Mrs Dekker, who has raised with you other issues, including the way in which families are treated when they ask for a fatal accident inquiry. I am concerned that the perception, if not the reality, is that families' requests for fatal accident inquiries are essentially brushed aside. Given that you intend to write separately to Mrs Dekker on those matters, what is your thinking on that?

At her request, I agreed to meet Margaret Dekker so that she could talk further about those issues, not all of which are addressed in her petition. Although some of the issues that she has raised fall slightly outside the petition, they are still quite valuable, as some of them relate to the victim support statements that the committee considered by way of statutory regulation.

What we should do with the information is a matter for the committee, but I think that it is important that the information is fed in. Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers wants to comment on the information, and there would be no harm in allowing it to do so.

It was useful to hear Margaret Dekker's comments on the lack of Scottish statistics in the report by the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That was one of the most concerning issues. The Scottish statistics should certainly be in the report, albeit that they might look slightly different.

There are quite a number of recommendations and it is for the committee to decide how to respond to them. I think that we should provide an opportunity for Margaret Dekker to explain all her concerns, which have been copied to members. As there are a number of recommendations, we might want to focus on the areas where we think that we could be of most use.

It is certainly valuable that the convener gave Mrs Dekker that opportunity to bring those other issues to our attention. We should probably bring some of the points about the working practices around fatal accident inquiries and victim statements to the attention of the Executive and the Lord Advocate and ask them for comments. Whether we can take a committee view at this stage is another question, but we could certainly put the issues before the Executive and Lord Advocate. It would be worthwhile to get their response at this point.

We need to be clear as a committee about which matters relate directly to the petition that has come through the Public Petitions Committee and which are part of SCID's recommendations. There is nothing to stop us pulling out any specific points, but for purposes of clarity we need to be clear about which elements relate to the petition and which elements relate to the campaign, because there are things in the campaign's recommendations that are not in the petition.

Some changes have been introduced in relation to cases being referred to the High Court. It may be worthwhile for us to ask SCID whether it could advise us about its experience of the changes that have been introduced. I have the feeling that SCID may not be happy about how some of the matters that appear to have been addressed are working out in practice. That would be relevant to the petition.

I do not have a problem with that—there is no dissent.

I will go back to the action that the committee wants to take on the petitions. There has been a suggestion that we should take option a, which is

"to write back to the Lord Advocate and the Executive asking that"

the committee

"be forwarded all outstanding information as soon as possible".

The information that we await is an

"announcement on progress of the steering group on the DTLR report",

because there is a possibility of a further consultation paper, which is expected this year. We also await

"information on the feasibility of a new approach to collection of statistical information on road accident injuries".

That is a specific request of the campaign.

We also await the

"DTLR report on survey of convicted careless and dangerous drivers (and their families), expected in early 2004",

and an update

"on the recommendations outlined in the Review of the Investigation of Road Deaths in Scotland, expected in Spring 2004."

The final piece of information that we await is on

"offences under section 3A of the Road Traffic Act (The Lord Advocate offered to provide this ‘as soon as possible'.)"

It may be worth adding that we have had confirmation that the vast majority of cases in which there is a fatality now go to the High Court. Since the committee is dealing with—or has dealt with—the reform of the High Court and the fact that some of the cases will move down to the sheriff court, we may want to ask for clarification as to whether the terms of those new arrangements will affect such cases, as I think that the campaign is a lot happier with the existing situation. It might be worth getting clarification of that. Is that the way in which the committee wishes to proceed?

Did you include option b, which refers to asking about the lack of involvement of Scottish agencies?

I did not, but I think that we should do so.

How do you feel about my suggestion that the papers on the other issues should be forwarded to the Executive and the Lord Advocate for their comments?

I do not see why we should not do that.

Presentationally, they would have to be separated out from the petition, but there would be value in forwarding them.

I do not think that there is any objection to our doing that. The committee has had the chance to see all the correspondence and the recommendations. Would it be possible to pluck out the recommendations and put them in one document so that we could see those that are in the petition and those that are not?

Yes.

I did not pick up on Michael Matheson's suggestion about writing to the petitioners formally to ask how they think that the new arrangements were working. We should do that formally, if that is agreeable.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Road Accidents (Police 999 Calls) (PE111)

The next petition is PE111, on which members have received papers from the clerks. The petition relates to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which deals with reserved issues. The petition, from Frank Harvey, calls on the Parliament to order a public inquiry into road accidents that involve vehicles that are responding to 999 calls. At a previous meeting, the committee asked me to write to a number of agencies to clarify the procedures that were in place. Members have copies of the replies.

One thing that struck me was that the fire brigade has a comprehensive training programme for full-time employees but not for part-time employees. That should be looked into.

I agree. The Fire Brigades Union has raised the issue of the uniformity of driver training across Scotland. Skid-pan training is an issue for all members of staff, and I think that we should raise that with the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association.

A fire services bill is planned, so I suggest that we also raise the issue with the Scottish Executive to find out its views on driver training. We should find out whether the Executive plans to take any action to improve the uniformity of training for drivers.

I agree. There is no consistency of approach across the brigades in Scotland. Each brigade is left to its own devices in its driver training, as we can see from the papers that we have. There is a particular concern over retained and volunteer drivers, as we have already mentioned.

The FBU paper talks about senior officers. Until recently, senior officers had no training at all in driving under blue-light conditions, although now, in some if not all brigades, those officers receive such training. However, that training is limited, in most cases, to those who receive permanent promotions. Those on temporary promotions do not receive the training. That seems anomalous, especially as some temporary promotions to senior officer level last for a considerable time—months or sometimes years. The lack of driver training for senior officers is a clear problem. They quite often come up from station officer level having never driven a vehicle under blue-light conditions. They then become temporary assistant divisional officers and are given a car, a set of keys and a set of blue lights. The FBU expresses very well the clear concerns over that.

I think that Mr Harvey may be referring to a particular incident that he had read about. The committee decided to consider the broader issues that arose and to find out about the legal position of vehicles that are in pursuit or are dealing with an emergency. It is clear that if someone is in a vehicle being chased, it is an offence for them not to stop. However, what are other members' experiences of vehicles getting out of the road of the blue light? In my experience, most people do not know what to do. That is not because they have not seen the blue light; it is because nobody knows who should pull in first. It occurred to me that there should perhaps be some public information. It is all very well having advanced drivers for police or fire vehicles, but if members of the public do not know how to get out of the road without killing somebody, there may be a need for public information.

We have to allow flexibility in law to allow some kind of pursuit and to enable emergencies to be dealt with, so we would not necessarily want speed limits to apply. However, neither should those vehicles be beyond the law. I do not think that we will be able to solve the issue that the petitioner raises by suggesting anything in that regard, other than tidying up issues relating to training and emphasising that those vehicles are not beyond the law. As a consequence of thinking about this petition, however, I think that it might be useful if there were public information to make it easier for police or fire vehicles to use their training and their blue light to ensure that they have the clearest path possible.

It would be entirely reasonable to write to CACFOA to seek clarification on the issue of police and fire fighter training, although I understand that it is working on the issue at the moment. I am fairly confident that full-time fire fighters who volunteer for driver training receive quite extensive training, but the issue of uniformity across Scotland has to be addressed, as does the issue of retaining the volunteer and senior officer training.

However, that does not preclude our seeking further information about the last time the maximum penalty in the 1988 act was reviewed. That is a valid question to ask.

I agree with that but, as I suggested earlier, I think that we should write to the Executive to raise the issue of uniformity of training. I assume that the Executive is in dialogue with CACFOA to address the issues, but I would like to ensure that that is happening.

We need to come to a conclusion about the petition while taking action. In that letter to the Executive, perhaps we should broaden out the issues that we think need to be dealt with. Stewart, are you suggesting that we write separately to the Executive on the issue that you raised in relation to the fire service?

We need to know what the up-to-date position is, as the situation has been evolving in recent years and training for all the groups that we are talking about has come on by leaps and bounds. Further, I think that we should be recommending that minimum and uniform standards be set for such training across Scotland.

In the letter to the Executive, we can deal with the broader issues relating to all the services and with minimum standards in relation to driving and training and also ask specifically about the current situation with regard to the fire service. If anything comes out of that inquiry, we can pursue it further, but are we agreed that our writing to the Executive on this matter closes our consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.