Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Official Report 491KB pdf

---

Current Petition

---

Self-inflicted and Accidental Deaths (Public Inquiries) (PE1501)

We are always willing to take on board feedback. Alan McCloskey mentioned a referral mechanism to Victim Support, which is one area that we will need to work on. We do not have a specific plan to improve the simplicity of decision making in relation to people who challenge decisions, but we are working to ensure that we bring families into that decision-making process as often as possible and give them as much in-depth information as possible.

We are considering the information that we give to victims. I am not talking about rights that are codified in the same way as they are in the criminal system. However, in effect we offer the same service and the same information. A lack of knowledge has been revealed on the part of families regarding what they are entitled to with respect to our policies and what we will take to them. We are considering all that again with a view to refreshing the information that we give.

I am not so sure that the hearing before the sheriff would be simple. If there has been a lengthy investigation into a death, a legal test would have to be met in order for the sheriff to be able to consider the matter. We do not know what that test would be, as there is no mechanism for that at the moment. The evidence that we had obtained would also have to be considered.

The hearing would almost be a mini-FAI in itself, and it could last for more than a day or so. I do not envisage it being a simple hearing. A number of mentions have been made this morning of a preliminary hearing before a sheriff, but I am not quite so sure that the process would be as simple as is envisaged.

At the moment, there is no mechanism for a hearing before the sheriff. There is the Lord Advocate’s investigation, which is carried out by the procurator fiscal; for most deaths, that investigation is, in practice, undertaken by the specialist Scottish fatalities investigation unit. Once we have reached a conclusion about the cause of death and the surrounding circumstances and once we have had that conversation with the family, consideration will be given to whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry under the terms of the current legislation. In some cases, there might be a petition to the court for a fatal accident inquiry.

If there is to be no such inquiry, the remedy open to the family is to take a judicial review of the Lord Advocate’s decision to the Court of Session. I would suggest that, because there is the remedy of judicial review to challenge the Lord Advocate’s decision, there is no gap of the kind that was mentioned earlier.

It may assist the committee to consider some of the cases that we are currently dealing with, from between October 2013 and 30 April 2014. There are 256 cases in which the death may well have been a suicidal death. We have done further work on behalf of and at the request of the families in relation to about 10 of those cases, in order to clarify matters. In the remainder of the cases, there have been no requests to do further work and no disagreements. In relation to the 10 cases, I do not think that there has been a disagreement as to the cause of death; there have been further things that families have wished to have clarified, we have agreed that it is appropriate to clarify them and we have instructed further investigations.

A few suggestions have been made about how we could get round that. Some of those suggestions involve the work that the Justice Committee is doing.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of my Glasgow colleague Patricia Ferguson on a possible member’s bill. One aim of the proposed inquiries into deaths (Scotland) bill would be to make the process of investigating deaths quicker and more transparent; appropriate cases would be referred to specialist sheriff courts and the families of the deceased person would be given a more central role in the process. The proposed bill covers other areas, too, but what are your views on that aspect of it?

In simple terms, the petition calls for more information to be provided to families and for families to be at the centre of the process. We would absolutely support that, as it has to be an advantage to the system. In terms of disadvantages, Stephen McGowan is right to say that there are issues relating to family dynamics that need to be factored in, and needs must be assessed in decision making, but families should get as much information as possible and must be involved in the process if it is to be truly effective.

The question is difficult to answer. The Government has made various proposals. The member’s bill that has been consulted on has also been mentioned.

From my perspective, not too much is wrong with the current system, which is fit for purpose in relation to most cases. It is difficult to say what could be done to make it better.

I will ask a final question before I bring in my colleagues. Has engagement with bereaved families improved since the launch of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit and the establishment of Police Scotland in April 2013?

I will pick up on one of the last points that Mr McGowan made, about there being no mechanism. We have the petition in front of us, so there must be some rationale and some questioning behind what is happening.

The paper that has been produced by the clerks says:

“An FAI may also be held, on a discretionary basis”—

presumably at the Lord Advocate’s discretion. By what process does he arrive at a discretionary judgment? Are there no rules or guidelines?

The only advantage is that there would be a public hearing for scrutinising the decision in the particular instance concerned. As I said, that public hearing is already available in the form of a judicial review.

There would be a number of disadvantages. First, there is the potential for suspicion to fall upon people when there is in fact no reasonable suspicion. There might be suspicions on the part of third parties but, objectively, there is no suspicion. There would be a public hearing, and there might be a suspicion that a person had committed a crime, without them necessarily having the ability to defend themselves.

There would be potential for family members not to agree with one another. We are talking about families as if they speak with one voice, but as the committee will appreciate families are diverse. In our experience, although families sometimes speak with the same voice, they can also take diametrically opposite views.

10:30

The purpose of the current deaths investigation and fatal accident inquiry system is to ensure that if there has been a crime, it cannot be concealed and there is a proper investigation of it, and that where there are risks to public health, safety and welfare, they are looked at so that they cannot be repeated. That is what we look at when we consider holding a fatal accident inquiry.

I think that there will be some difficulty around how a sheriff would make that decision without having an inquiry. That would mean that the family would have the right to have an inquiry, as opposed to the Lord Advocate holding an inquiry in the public interest, which is done when the Lord Advocate feels that a risk to public health, safety and welfare needs to be taken into account and prevented from being repeated. In effect, we would have a situation in which the family, to achieve their aim, would have an inquiry rather than just a preliminary hearing. The family would have a right to have an inquiry in every case, which would be a different position altogether.

We should carry forward the petition. The Lord Advocate could be asked for his direct view, although, were we to refer the petition to the Justice Committee, that committee would clearly do that. The petition is worth while. It is expedient that we forward it to the Justice Committee.

Thank you for that. Would other panel members like to respond?

We do have guidance. The Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 sets out the test. The test under that act is whether it is

“expedient in the public interest”

to carry out such an inquiry. Further detail is provided in article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Broadly speaking, the convention sets out an obligation to have an independent inquiry by the state into the cause of the death in a way that involves the family in the decision making and in sharing the decision making. That is the obligation.

We try to involve families as best we can at all stages of our investigations into deaths. Typically, when we receive a report of a death, we contact the family either by phone or by letter; thereafter, our involvement with families basically depends on the family themselves and how much they want to know.

There are limits to what we can tell families and we know about that in terms of giving statements. However, once we have come to the end of our investigation, reached a conclusion and have information about the cause of and circumstances surrounding the death, we offer the family a meeting at which we explain our conclusions and the evidence, including any contradictions that there might be in the principal evidence. We are also able to offer them access to post-mortem, medical, toxicology and other expert reports.

We try to involve families at every stage, but we are always open to feedback on how we can improve our service to people and the amount of information that we know families want.

I would say that it definitely has. As I said, all that the Scottish fatalities investigation unit deals with is death investigations and families in relation to deaths, so it is able to respond better, more quickly and more easily to families. Families are assisted by specialist victim information and advice officers, who for the most part deal with only deaths cases and are therefore much better placed to respond, to learn the lessons and to take on board the feedback that we always get about how we can improve our service in future.

The specialist approach that we now offer, which we were not in a position to offer three or four years ago or prior to that, is a big boon and it will develop as time goes on.

Alan McCloskey mentioned the dynamics of family situations, which are at the centre of the issue, more so than the process. I am sure that we all share that view. However, I am even more confused than I was earlier about the role of the hearings in front of a sheriff. Mr McCreadie said that those hearings are held objectively, and I asked about the role of the Court of Session being more objective. Can you help me? Clarify, please, the difference between information going through the sheriff court and a case that is promulgated further up the line to the Court of Session.

Good morning. I want to follow up Mr McGowan’s comment about public inquiries. He expressed quite clearly the issues relating to the protection of families—hence the reason for not adopting a coroner’s court type of system. Who decides whether an FAI is held? In Mr McGowan’s evidence, he gave an example in which the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate may decide to go ahead with a public FAI against the family’s wishes because they think that it is in the public interest to do so. Who set that public interest test and who carries it forward?

Do any of the other witnesses wish to answer my question?

The provisions of that proposed member’s bill are not necessary in the form in which they have been presented. In my view, we can achieve the same ends by looking into our processes. The bill is not necessary in order to provide victims with the service that we need to give them.

The easy answer could be that nothing needs to be done.

We are all agreed that we should continue the petition. We can either invite comments from the petitioner, the Scottish Government and others and consider the petition again, or we can refer the petition to the Justice Committee, as it would be best placed to consider the legislation on FAIs that is to be introduced later in the parliamentary session. The second option is a matter for this committee to decide.

From your perspective, there would be one limited benefit and perhaps not so much in mitigation beyond that. Mr McCreadie?

Thank you again, convener, for affording the Law Society of Scotland the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s deliberations on this petition.

With regard to the gap that Alan McCloskey referred to, the Law Society respectfully suggests that, for the small number of families of the deceased who are still dissatisfied after the outcome of the Crown Office’s deliberations, there be another stage in the process: a preliminary hearing before the sheriff in whose jurisdiction the death occurred to determine whether there should be a further inquiry.

Do you believe that that obligation is being met in all cases?

I would have thought that, for completeness, it would be appropriate for us to allow the petitioner and the Scottish Government to comment on a summation of the evidence that we have heard today and then to consider the petition again. We could at that point forward to the Justice Committee something a little bit more rounded than what we could forward at this early stage.

I have a more general comment—outwith the committee’s interest in the petition—that relates to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. Much of the work that was done last year at the various stages of the bill process was aimed at ensuring that the voice of victims was at the very centre.

At the start of stage 1, victims were asked to come along and present evidence on their experience of the criminal justice system, not so much on being a victim of crime as on being passed from pillar to post—in their words—between one agency and another. There are some parallels with the need to ensure that victims and their families are at the heart of the death inquiry process and do not have to retell their story or fight for justice, which should be a given.

The 2014 act gives victims a right to complain and to get information, and the committee could consider whether some aspects or principles of the act could be adopted in the death inquiry process.

In citing an advantage, I can do no more than refer to the Law Society of Scotland’s submission:

“If only a small number of families are dissatisfied, then the creation of a statutory right to request an FAI might result in a very small number of additional hearings per annum throughout Scotland; such a hearing would provide closure to those families with unanswered questions; it should have a minimal economic impact”

—particularly if it goes to the sheriff as opposed to the Court of Session—and it should

“reinforce public confidence in Scotland’s system for investigation of apparently self-inflicted deaths.”

The responsibility for that decision sits with the Lord Advocate, and the decision is made by Crown counsel on behalf of the Lord Advocate. We are talking about discretionary FAIs; there will be a mandatory FAI where there has been a death in custody or a death at work—the legislation mandates that ordinarily such FAIs will happen. However, decisions about discretionary FAIs are decisions of the Lord Advocate.

I am afraid that I cannot comment on how well the system is working. I reiterate that the Law Society’s position is that, where there is still dissatisfaction, we would respectfully suggest that the matter should not go to the Court of Session, because of the resultant costs.

By way of an aside, members may be aware of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Justice Committee. It seeks to impose a time limit within which a judicial review can be brought and also a test, and it provides that a judicial review is simply a review of the Lord Advocate’s decision without looking at the merits of the decision.

I am not in a position to comment on how well the current system is working but—as I have previously stated this morning—if there is an issue, the Law Society’s suggested remedy would be a preliminary hearing before the sheriff.

As I outlined, the judicial review remedy that is in place at present would simply look at the decision that has been made and at whether it is a proper decision, as opposed to looking at the merits of that decision. How or in what way the sheriff would determine a case is not something that could be considered further, but it would be held locally and it would certainly have a minimal economic impact on the public purse if it went to a sheriff instead of to the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

I take on board what Stephen McGowan said about expertise, where the judges in the Court of Session may be considering more of those cases, but there is definitely an issue of perception. Whether it is in the Court of Session or before a sheriff, the fact that a decision is being taken out of Crown Office and considered elsewhere should increase public confidence for the very small number of dissatisfied families.

For the most part, little needs to be done to the system. I would not like to pin my colours to the mast and say what changes I would make.

I move to the heart of the petitioner’s request, which is that a new category of mandatory public inquiry be established where the family of the deceased would wish such an inquiry to be held, in what we have established to be a small number of instances.

I understand that you come to the matter with a certain perspective, but I wonder whether you could set that aside and, in the first instance, give us the benefit of your views on the advantages and disadvantages of what has been requested. Could you then cut to the chase and tell us your own attitude to the proposition as it has been put? We would like to understand, for the benefit of our consideration, what you see—with all your experience—as the advantages and disadvantages of the request, before we find out what your own attitudes might be. I would be interested to hear from all and any of you—you can jump in in any order.

Notwithstanding Stephen McGowan’s comments about involvement, I think that it is worth pointing out that quite a significant number of families are involved in the investigative process and that the police usually seek to speak to family numbers as part of their broader investigation to look at background and so on.

That is the issue that the petitioner has raised. I know that there are areas in which there is no discretion on whether an FAI should be held. We are discussing self-inflicted or accidental deaths and whether the evidence that is provided to families is sufficient for them to come to the same conclusion that the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate has come to in determining not to proceed to a full public FAI. Can we seek assurances that steps will be taken to ensure that families are fully consulted on the Lord Advocate’s decisions and that, as long as the situation does not proceed to a criminal case, information and evidence will be made available to families so that they can fully understand and be part of the decision not to proceed to an FAI?

We may have covered the issue briefly, but let us say that there is a situation in which family members do not agree that a public inquiry should be held. How might such a situation be dealt with? Gary Flannigan said that a number of meetings would be held with families, but how would such a situation be handled?

As I said, for the small number of cases in which there are still issues, some form of hearing, before an FAI, to determine whether the case should go ahead is suggested.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to today’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. As always, I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones and any other electronic equipment, as it interferes with our sound system.

Agenda item 1 is consideration of a current petition. PE1501, by Stuart Graham, is on public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following suspicious death investigations. The committee previously agreed to take evidence from a number of parties on this petition, and I therefore welcome to the meeting all the panel members. We had a late substitute, for which I am very grateful.

I welcome Stephen McGowan, deputy director of serious case work, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; Alan McCreadie, deputy director of law reform, Law Society of Scotland; Detective Chief Superintendent Gary Flannigan, Police Scotland; and Alan McCloskey, director of operations, Victim Support Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk, and paper PPC/S4/14/11/1 refers.

As there will be no opening statement, I will kick off with some questions, and then my colleagues will ask some additional questions. At this point, I should say that I am very grateful to the witnesses for giving up their time to let us to take a further look at the very delicate area covered in the petition.

My first question is for Alan McCloskey, but obviously I welcome the views of other panel members. In your view, Mr McCloskey, do bereaved family members have enough involvement in suspicious death investigations?

That is a very good point. You may recall that, in the previous parliamentary session, I had a particular interest in creating the post of a victims commissioner for Scotland. I spent a lot of time working with the victims commissioner for England and Wales, and it was interesting to compare and contrast the approach in Scotland and the model down south. We have a lot to be proud of in Scotland, but I felt that there was an additional element in the system in England.

Although the victims commissioner was an excellent model, I realise that that ship has now sailed. Nevertheless, I wanted to put on record that there are some interesting aspects of England’s approach that we can consider.

Mr McGowan said that victims could go to the Court of Session if they were dissatisfied. How much would that cost? I know that that is a difficult question, but is that a realistic option for ordinary working-class victims who have had a problem? My understanding is that the Court of Session is a very expensive place to get to.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

That makes sense.

Yes, I do. That obligation has been tested in Scotland within the last few years, in a case called Emms. The court held that the obligation was being fulfilled in Scotland by the Lord Advocate in carrying out his role and by the fatal accident inquiry system, and that there was no gap in the legislation concerned.

Was your suggestion, in terms of the preliminary hearing before the sheriff, intended as an alternative or as a preliminary to the suggestion in the petition?

There is a very strong case for ensuring that families are proactively involved in the process from the very start and that they have access to as much information about what is happening as needs be. If they are involved, they feel empowered. At the moment, there is a gap in that respect, and that is one of the aspects of the petition that we are keen to see factored in to how things are taken forward.

The establishment of Police Scotland has introduced a level of scrutiny and consistency that did not previously exist. Stephen McGowan touched on the importance of specialism. That is not necessarily only about information sharing but about ensuring that the investigation is thorough and professional from the outset, to ensure that we are in a better place to give the families the type of information that they require. I am very confident that we are in an improved position as a result of the level of scrutiny and the availability of specialist resources across Scotland.

Obviously, when we look at the death of a loved one we are dealing with an individual event for each family member. Can we say that we are handling those situations better? I think that the tie-up and the partnership between the Crown and ourselves and the level of scrutiny and dialogue that now takes place is probably a strong indicator that things are better for the families.

The families will be fully consulted on that. Ultimately, the legislation says that the decision rests with the Lord Advocate, but the families will be fully consulted.

On the sharing of evidence that has been gathered in an investigation, we are happy to share with nearest relatives the post-mortem reports, medical reports, toxicology reports and collision investigation reports, if that is appropriate, along with photographs. We will also give them a summary of the evidence as we understand it and point to any discrepancies in the evidence.

I have a quick question, convener. With regard to Mr McCreadie’s comment about having another step in the process, why is what he has suggested not happening at the moment?

I cannot answer directly on what the cost is. Taking a case to the sheriff is also likely to have a cost and would, given the unusual nature of the challenges, probably involve a similar level of costs if we wanted lawyers to be involved.

I have one other point on why cases should go to the Court of Session rather than to the sheriff. Investigations into deaths are now done by both the police and the procurator fiscal, and involve specialists. The Scottish fatalities investigation unit will deal with an investigation of a death if there are any suspicious circumstances; I am sure that Gary Flannigan can tell you about the way in which the major investigation teams in the police work.

Specialists carry out the investigation and make the decision. If there was to be a right to go before the sheriff, there would be a danger that, as such cases are so rare, the sheriff would not have seen one before. The specialist skills used in the investigation and the decision making by the procurator fiscal might present a challenge to a non-specialist.

Given the small number of such cases, I suggest that the Court of Session is still the appropriate place to hear them because it can build a body of expertise. It is unlikely that the sheriff court would have that same body of expertise just because of the limited number of cases of that nature.

The family’s view on whether there should be a public inquiry will weigh heavily in the decision that we make on whether there ought to be a fatal accident inquiry, so it would be a significant part of our decision making. In the case of any given death, there may be issues that are of such importance to the wider public that, despite the family’s desire that there not be a public inquiry, we might feel that there ought to be, because there are issues that need to be ventilated. At the same time, if those issues could be dealt with in another way and the family were keen not to have a public inquiry, we would take that on board. The family’s view weighs heavily in our consideration of whether it is in the public interest, but there may be wider public interest considerations that mean that we would have to have a public inquiry anyway, despite the family not wanting one.

I am bound to agree that it is difficult to see that we would make a radical change when the number of such cases is few.

I think that it was seen more as a remedy to the situation in which a family is dissatisfied—an additional independent safeguard, put in place by law, to let the sheriff consider the issue objectively and decide where it should go if a family is dissatisfied.

What is the timescale? Does anyone know when the Justice Committee is aiming to look at the legislation?

What options are there for family members who are not satisfied with investigations carried out by the police or by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?

The point about expertise is very interesting. We are looking for objectivity, and sometimes we do not want people with too much expertise. People should make judgments on the evidence that is presented before them. I am not sure what the difference is, and why we would want to go down the expensive Court of Session route, even though there are only a few cases, just because we want legal decisions to be made only by those who have expertise.

I did not ask about a radical change; I just asked about areas for adaptation, which does not have to be radical.

We do not have that information, but the committee clerks liaise very closely with one another. We can report back at a future meeting.

Will there be any movement by the Lord Advocate on the issues that Mr McCloskey has raised about the lack of referrals to Victim Support Scotland of families who have lost a relative to a self-inflicted or accidental death, so that they can get support and advice? In many respects, it is about not just support, but advice and how to take forward any issues of concern that families may have. I suggest that the Lord Advocate’s office take on board the points that Mr McCloskey has raised.

I have no information about the existing arrangements—I was simply making a suggestion with regard to the small number of families to whom it would apply. I am sorry that I cannot answer your question all that well, but I do not want to venture an explanation as to why that is not happening at present. All that the Law Society is doing is making a respectful suggestion for the small number of families who still feel disaffected after they learn the Crown Office’s position. Perhaps Stephen McGowan might be able to answer the question.

As far as the police are concerned, there is the complaints against police—CAP—process. Initially, we would seek to deal with the matter locally, if it was raised locally. Then, we would escalate it up through the complaints procedure in order to address it. We would not do that in isolation. Because of the nature of what we were dealing with, there would definitely be a role for the Scottish fatalities investigation unit, which would be made aware that families were unhappy with the level of information. I say from experience that that is highly unusual in those circumstances, although it is not unheard of. We would work hand in glove with the Crown in order to make it aware that there was an issue. Ultimately, the decisions rest with the Crown.

There are two slightly different issues. We support families who have been bereaved through murder who are going through a murder trial, but there is no referral mechanism for fatal accident inquiries. As Stephen McGowan said, the victim information and advice service will support families by providing information and advice about a fatal accident inquiry, but there is no referral mechanism. That is one of the gaps that I referred to for families whose loved one has been affected by self-inflicted or accidental death. There is a difference between the processes in that regard.

You produce that as a remedy—would I be leading you if I suggested that your own attitude to the petition is that it would be the wrong approach?

I am referring to the expertise in the decision making and in ensuring that investigations are full and thorough. The decision making will always be objective and will take place on the basis of evidence that is before the court, but gathering that evidence and ensuring that all the avenues have been completely seen is a job that is done by specialists, and it informs the decision making.

The decisions are always made objectively by whoever makes them, but it is useful for that person to know about the background and detail of the investigations, the points that commonly arise in such cases and whether particular avenues of investigation have proved fruitful in other cases. That bears out the need for expertise.

I apologise. I do not see obvious opportunities.

The simple answer to that is yes, we will take the matter forward.

One would not want to miss the Justice Committee’s consideration of the matter.

I emphasise that disagreements about such matters are very rare. In any case in which the family takes issue with anything that we have told them, there is likely to be a meeting. At that meeting, there would be a lengthy exposition of the facts as they are known. We would provide as much information as possible and we would hope to reach a conclusion that everyone would agree with.

It is worth pointing out that, unfortunately, there are some deaths for which we do not get all the answers, because the answers are not there to be found, no matter how thorough the investigation. If we end up in a position in which the family disagrees with some aspect of our conclusion, the remedy—if we had declined to hold a fatal accident inquiry because we did not think that it was in the public interest to do so, as we did not think that there was any systemic issue or anything that had to be ventilated in the public domain—would be a petition to the Court of Session to overturn that decision, in effect, and to ask for it to be reviewed.

10:15

Are there any plans or suggestions for improving the position of bereaved family members? The petitioner is not seeking to extend the FAIs, but is seeking a simplified procedure whereby families can challenge an investigation into a death and the outcome of that investigation. What plans do you have to simplify the process for families?

Having looked at the petition, my understanding is that something is missing from the process. The suggested answer to that—

We will take that point on board.

The primary issue is the gap in support. I mentioned that there is no protocol between the Crown Office and us on fatal accident inquiries. Families who are affected do not get access to support, so they are left to deal with the information and the process by themselves. That cannot be right.

I want to pick up on a point that Mr Wilson made earlier so that I may reassure the committee. I have been involved in investigating deaths for 30 years and have attended, with representatives of the Procurator Fiscal Service and other officers, a number of meetings with families at which findings have been gone over and explained. Such meetings have been held more often over the past decade. I have personal experience of that approach, and I reassure members that it takes place.

—would be the remedy that you have come forward with?

I am minded to continue the petition while we get responses from the Scottish Government and the petitioner—and anyone else who wishes to comment; based on today’s evidence, others may wish to comment. I think that, ultimately, we will refer the petition to the Justice Committee, but not at present.

As there are no further questions from the committee, we will go to the summation stage. The witnesses should stay with us for a couple of minutes. The committee will decide what the next steps should be. That is a matter for the whole committee.

The committee will be aware that there are a number of options. One option is that we invite comments from the petitioner and the Scottish Government on the evidence that we have heard and consider the petition again once responses are received. As always, I check with the committee whether there are contrary views or alternatives.

Would a different system—possibly one that is more closely related to the system of coroners’ inquests in England—be desirable or meet the petitioner’s aims and concerns?

It is simply a suggestion, Mr Carlaw, that the Parliament could perhaps consider.

And Mr McGowan’s view is that the number of instances would be sufficiently minimal to mean that the experience might not be there, which was the point that Mr Brodie touched on.

I am not sure that it would. Under the coroner system in England and Wales, there is a public hearing in relation to every death. Our experience is that the majority of families want to move on with life and do not want to have a public hearing, particularly when the death may have been at the person’s own hand and resulted from self-inflicted injuries, because such cases often involve sensitive matters such as mental health, sexuality, family dynamics and infidelity. All such issues could be behind such a death. In my experience, most families would not think it desirable to have that played out in the public eye.

The English coronial system would give us no great advantage. We have all its advantages at the moment, but without the downside of putting families through additional distress and potential trauma by going through a public hearing, which most families would not want.

I am happy to continue the petition and wait on the comments from the petitioner and the Scottish Government.

I should make the point that the investigation of death has the highest priority. Anne McTaggart mentioned simplifying and expediting the process. That is not always possible but it should be noted that the investigation, from a police perspective, is given the greatest priority. The outcome is sometimes more difficult to determine and that can sometimes be a difficulty for the family.

When we are dealing with complex issues where suspicion may still exist, it clearly makes it very difficult for us to share information. I do not envisage, from my own experience, that we will find ourselves in a situation where we would be able to do that, for the reasons that Stephen McGowan has alluded to. We would not know from the criminal investigation what the actual outcome might be.

As regards assisting you to assess the advantages or disadvantages, we are talking about a very small number of cases and I cannot offer anything beyond what my colleagues have said about how it might work. We have to look at each case on a case-by-case basis. We have to be careful and we have to examine the points that each family make to work out whether it is possible to assist them and whether their complaint or their difficulty lies in the manner in which they have been dealt with—which can be remedied—or whether it lies in them being unhappy with the outcome or the perceived outcome. I am not sure that I can assist you any further.

Given the low number of apparently self-inflicted deaths that proceed to FAIs, there might be merit in considering the position in other jurisdictions. I appreciate that, in England and Wales, a coroner conducts an inquest in every case. That might not be appropriate for this jurisdiction. It might be useful to compare and contrast with other jurisdictions the number of inquiries that are held following a self-inflicted death.

I am content to continue the petition and await comments from the petitioner and the Scottish Government.

Thank you very much. As the witnesses have heard, we are very interested in the petition. We will continue it, seek the views of the petitioner and the Scottish Government and look at it again. We will keep the witnesses up to date with developments.

I thank all four witnesses for giving up their time to be here and for giving us such expert advice and guidance. I suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.

10:52 Meeting suspended.

10:57 On resuming—

In our letter to the committee, we highlighted that no system is perfect. The literature that was provided gave the example of the tragic events at Hillsborough, which epitomise the point that no system is perfect. We will always need to look at whether we can learn lessons from individual circumstances. Police Scotland feels comfortable with the current arrangements, but we recognise that we must continue to provide victims and families with the best possible service.

I agree with Alan McCreadie about looking at the measures that are put in place in other jurisdictions. That is something for the committee to consider.

One definite advantage of the English coroner system is that it very much puts families at the centre of the process, allowing their questions and concerns to be addressed. That is an important benefit of that system.

10:45

We may have covered this point, but I am slightly confused about some of the information that we have heard. How could the provisions relating to fatal accident inquiries be adapted? The Scottish Government has stated that it plans to legislate to reform FAIs. How could FAIs be adapted to provide a suitable and acceptable form of public inquiry?