Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Official Report 497KB pdf

---

Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation in Scotland

The next item of business is evidence in our significant inquiry into tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. I welcome the panel: the Lord Advocate, the Rt Hon Frank Mulholland; Alison Di Rollo, head of the national sexual crimes unit of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; and Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham of Police Scotland.

We have questions that we wish to address to individual members of the panel, but that does not preclude the questions being extended to other members. We have a lot of questions, and it may well be—in fact, it is almost certain—that we will not cover all of them in our verbal exchanges today, so it is our intention to write to panel members with some of the questions and to receive the answers at the appropriate time.

As we have a substantial number of questions, I ask for brevity in both questions and answers. Do the witnesses have anything to say briefly at the beginning of their evidence?

I have some brief opening remarks, as does Malcolm Graham, so I shall just get on with it. First, thank you for inviting me to give evidence to the committee. I have with me Alison Di Rollo, who is senior Crown counsel leading the national sexual crimes unit, which was set up in June 2010. We hope to answer your questions, and if there is anything that has not been covered, we will be happy to deal with it later in writing.

Sexual abuse and exploitation are a key priority for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Having served as Crown counsel for a lengthy period of time, and having prosecuted many such cases over the years—many of them involving children—I came to the realisation that specialist prosecutors and investigators are required in this challenging area. That is why the national sexual crimes unit was set up in 2010, with the aim of bringing knowledge, expertise and experience to a challenging area of criminality.

The national sexual crimes unit stands at the head of a matrix of sexual offence teams in three federations—east, west and north. All members of those teams are trained in dealing with sexual offences involving children and understand the dynamics at play, such as delayed reporting, grooming, empathy and loyalty towards the perpetrator even after the exploitation and abuse have been discovered, peer pressure, and victims’ lack of understanding that they are victims. The members of the teams are skilled at interviewing and leading evidence from vulnerable and damaged children whose vulnerability has been exploited, often leading to the most horrific of circumstances.

Alison Di Rollo is also lead for Scotland in human trafficking, bringing a consistency of approach and an understanding of the issues in that area.

Before I conclude my opening remarks, I will raise a couple of matters for your consideration. First, we recognise that victims in this area are often targeted for their vulnerability. It is not uncommon to find that victims are very damaged; they may have drug and alcohol issues and chaotic lifestyles. It is a huge challenge. However, the focus for prosecutors must be on the credibility of the allegation that is being made, rather than failing to bring cases because of perceived weaknesses in the victim. That is why the approach of the national sexual crimes unit is to build strong cases by linking evidence, working at an early stage with police, prosecutors and procurators fiscal.

Secondly, sexual grooming and exploitation of children happen in the shadows, outwith the gaze of responsible adults and law enforcement. It is often difficult to obtain sufficient corroboration of a victim’s evidence. By the time the abuse is discovered or reported, forensic and medical opportunities may have been lost, and a skilled abuser will not say anything incriminating, on the advice of his lawyer. In those circumstances, prosecutors will, with a heavy heart, have no option but to instruct no proceedings, despite the quality of the evidence being above the prosecution test threshold of reasonable prospect of conviction. For example, in cases that were reported to procurators fiscal between 2010 and 2013 under the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, where the victim was a child, 569 charges were not proceeded with, 321 as a result of insufficient evidence.

That concludes my opening remarks. I think that Malcolm Graham wishes to make a few opening remarks, after which I would be delighted to answer your questions.

I echo Mr Mulholland, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide evidence on what is a key priority for Police Scotland. As anyone who has listened to the media and read reports about the very simple objective of Police Scotland will know, it is about keeping people safe. Children, particularly those who are vulnerable, are top of the list. The prevention and investigation of child abuse have been a high priority for the police and partners in Scotland for some time. Child sexual exploitation is a recognised strand of child abuse.

In some instances, new technologies and behaviours have created significant challenges for policy makers and practitioners, and not just in policing. Child sexual exploitation is a form of child abuse that is currently receiving high levels of public and media scrutiny, largely due to a widespread interest and perceived shortcomings in some recent high-profile investigations in England and Wales.

Police Scotland continues to work closely with local partners through participation in child protection committees and adult protection committees to develop multi-agency guidance and protocols in a variety of business areas that overlap with child sexual exploitation. Each of the local child protection committees in Scotland is at a different stage of progress in developing specific child sexual exploitation protocols, which Police Scotland is driving through the country.

Difficulties can be and have been encountered in developing a shared understanding of the issue among statutory partners and third sector providers at a national level. It is considered that there is a need for national co-ordination and oversight to drive local CPC and other activity, to ensure that children are kept safe.

The creation of Police Scotland provides a fantastic opportunity to enhance national policy, co-ordination and operational responses to child sexual exploitation. I wish specifically to highlight several things that have happened since 1 April, which have provided an enhanced response in this area.

The formation of a national rape task force and structure, locally delivered in 14 local police divisions, with a national co-ordination centre, a national rape investigation team and a national rape review team working with the national sexual crimes unit in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, ensures a local response to the large and increasing number of sexual crime reports that are being received. Most importantly, it has allowed us better to understand the nature of the problem across Scotland and to ensure that the quality of investigations and interactions with victims and other witnesses is consistently being driven up through a review process and rigorous quality assurance measures.

Alongside the national rape task force is a national human trafficking unit. Those are, in effect, part of the same department, although they each have dedicated staff. There is a clear focus on identifying and safeguarding any children or young people who might be victims of trafficking. There have already been some results with the identification of victims of trafficking who, we believe, would otherwise not have been identified.

As we continue to evolve and develop Police Scotland, we are in the process of implementing a national child abuse investigation unit. It will build on the structure of the rape task force and the human trafficking unit, in that it will be a relatively small but specialist national unit. It will provide co-ordination and investigation into the most high-profile, complex investigations that cross boundaries. The national child abuse investigation unit will be responsible for ensuring quality and driving up standards in each of the 14 divisional public protection units, which are responsible for working with local partners on a day-to-day basis.

I return to where I started. Tackling child abuse is a high priority for Police Scotland. I welcome the opportunity to answer questions about how we continue to improve our response to the specific issues relating to child sexual exploitation.

Assistant Chief Constable Graham, you have highlighted some of the action that has been taken, and I am sure that it is very welcome. How are you relating that work to the work that we are currently doing or to the work that the Government is doing? It seems that the police is doing a lot of independent work, but how is that being collated with the work that will hopefully come from our inquiry and with some of the work that the Government is doing?

I was at pains to express that policing in partnership is the only way that we will safeguard children and other vulnerable people. That is particularly true when it comes to child sexual exploitation. I believe strongly that the increase in the reporting of sexual crime in recent years is down in large part to the increased confidence of victims to come forward. The victims of child sexual exploitation are perhaps the least likely to come forward because, as has been said, they are likely not to perceive themselves as being victims. Working in partnership at both local and national level is therefore the only way that we will improve our responses.

On the specific point about working with the Scottish Government, the police have been key stakeholders for some time in developing the various strands of what I believe to be an extremely strong child protection network and system of protecting children across Scotland. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the eight legacy forces were previously engaged with the Scottish Government in all aspects of that work.

More recently, since the creation of Police Scotland I have sat on the ministerial working group on child sexual exploitation, which is led by Children in Scotland but is supported by the Scottish Government. In taking part in the process today, we are happy to share our views on where we believe policy needs to go and to work with others to ensure that we are making the best of opportunities that we have to identify victims and safeguard people.

That is very important and welcome.

My next question is to Ms Di Rollo. The submission from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service mentions section 10 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which is about

“causing a person under 18 to become a provider of sexual services or to be involved in pornography”.

That offence is not even mentioned in the facts in the appendix. Is that because there have been no prosecutions? Why have there been no prosecutions? There have surely been some situations in which a person might have been prosecuted under that provision.

There may have been reports, but it is important to recognise—as we tried to convey in our submission and I hope to explain further today—that the activity involved in child sexual exploitation in Scotland does not fit into neat categories. We have an extensive toolkit of statutory offences and also some common-law offences that we apply to the facts and circumstances of each case that is reported to us. The need, and our professional objective, is to prosecute, on the evidence that we are given, in the best and most appropriate way possible to secure convictions.

For example, we have used the section on grooming in the 2005 act more often. That provision raised expectations and people may look to its use as a signpost to how well we are doing. However, the committee has to be aware that that section covers a relatively limited snapshot of the sexual activity that we are talking about. It reflects activity that has gone beyond preparation but not quite achieved perpetration. We have taken proceedings against those who have contacted the child and made arrangements to travel with the intention of having sexual activity. However, when those people have gone on to have sex with vulnerable children, a whole different panoply of crimes comes into play. I stress that, when we get reports from the police, our job as specialist prosecutors in the NSCU is to look at the whole range of statutory options that are available to us. We will always prosecute the most appropriate offence.

I will build on what Alison Di Rollo said and set out the technicalities. If we receive a report from the police that alleges grooming and there is a continuum into sexual abuse and sexual intercourse, the charge will always be libelled as the most serious charge, so that would be libelled as rape and the grooming aspect would be part of the evidence to support the charge of rape. If the accused is convicted, Disclosure Scotland or the court will record it as a conviction for rape, not a conviction under section 1 of the 2005 act. You should bear it in mind that prosecutors will always libel the highest or the most serious charge and use less serious charges as part of the narrative to support and prove the most serious charge.

10:15

I understand. I am just looking at the facts and seeing the number of prosecutions, and there is section 9 as well. Clearly, we need a better understanding of the technicalities, and I hope that we will get that from today.

Before I ask my main question, I seek clarification from the Lord Advocate. Are you saying that section 1 of the 2005 act needs to be strengthened in some way because prosecutions are taking place under other offences rather than under the legislation that was intended to catch perpetrators?

The legislation is catching perpetrators. To build on what I said earlier, I note that, if the conduct that is reported to the police is grooming, we will libel section 1 of the 2005 act. If it is grooming leading to sexual intercourse that is without consent or underage, we will libel the most appropriate charge for that. It is not the case that we are trying to bypass section 1. That is just the way in which charges have always been libelled in relation to the criminal law in Scotland.

I will give another common-law example. If there is a physical assault as part of a rape, on conviction the charge will be recorded as rape. That is just the way in which the courts record these crimes. It is not a case of trying to avoid prosecuting under section 1 of the 2005 act.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service says that it will prosecute all CSE offences

“where there is sufficient reliable and credible evidence”.

Will you define what you mean by “reliable and credible evidence”? I might have picked this up wrongly, but I think that you said in your opening statement that, of the 569 cases that have been reported since 2010, 321 have been subsequently dropped due to insufficient evidence. That equates to approximately 60 per cent of cases being dropped. How can we increase the figures and ensure that the evidence that vulnerable young people provide is seen to be more reliable and credible?

In those statistics, 569 is the total number of charges that could not be taken up. In other words, they were marked as no proceedings. The figure does not include charges that were taken up, if you see what I mean, as it only includes no-proceedings charges. For that reason, 60 per cent is not the percentage of the overall number of charges reported to procurators fiscal involving allegations of child sexual abuse. It is a percentage of the number of cases that could not be taken up, for whatever reason.

I will try to answer your question directly. What happens when a report is received from the police involving allegations of child sexual abuse? Direction will be given to the procurator fiscal as to how they should go about preparing or investigating the case for a decision by Crown counsel. That will involve an analysis and assessment of statements, supporting evidence, any forensic evidence and any medical evidence. It will also involve a process known as precognition, whereby the child victim is seen by the local procurator fiscal. They have an opportunity to go over their statement, questions are asked and an assessment is made of vulnerability and whether there should be special measures to aid the child’s evidence giving.

At the end of that whole process, the case is put together, a narrative is prepared and, most important, an analysis of the case is prepared and sent to Crown counsel to consider. That goes to the NSCU, which has long and lengthy experience of such cases.

A number of tests are then applied. The first is sufficiency. There has to be sufficient evidence in law. Regardless of whether the case involves the most credible victim in Scotland, if there is insufficient evidence and we cannot do anything about that, we cannot take up the case. The fiscal may be instructed to undertake further inquiries to try to achieve sufficiency but, at the end of the day, if there is insufficient evidence, that is the end of the process. At that stage, we will decide whether to intimate that decision to the accused and his legal advisers. That has a consequence because, if we intimate the decision to the accused and his legal advisers, we are barred from reraising the case if further evidence comes to light. Our practice is always to advise the victim sensitively of the decision and the reasons for it. Again, a skill set is required for that.

If there is sufficient evidence in law, the next stage is to assess the credibility and reliability of the allegation. We look at the case as a whole and apply our judgment, based on experience, as to whether the case is likely to prove. The prosecutorial test to which I referred is whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Essentially, that test involves an assessment of whether, on balance, a conviction is more likely than not if the case proceeds. If the answer to that is yes, we will indict the case or prosecute it summarily, but the majority of such cases are indicted.

That is the process that is involved.

Lord Advocate, thank you for the correction about the 569 cases that did not proceed. What was the total number of cases presented?

I do not have that figure, but I will provide it in writing.

It would be useful to be able to do a comparison of the numbers.

Further to the evidence that you have given, I want to compare that with what is happening south of the border. We know that Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions in England, has issued guidance on how the Crown Prosecution Service intends to take forward cases, particularly in light of the Savile inquiry and other high-profile cases. Are the Lord Advocate and his officials minded to review, or to make any recommendations to review, how we proceed in Scotland with cases of child sexual exploitation?

We continually review our processes. One procedure that I encourage is that case reviews are conducted after successful or unsuccessful prosecutions. That is how we can learn lessons and adjust our approach to these matters.

I am aware that the CPS has issued guidance fairly recently on an approach centring on the credibility of the allegation as opposed to the credibility or reliability of the victim. For some time now in Scotland, we have looked at the credibility of the allegation, as we are well aware of the difficulties. If people seek to groom a child for sexual exploitation, it is a well-known dynamic that they pick vulnerable individuals. In many cases, the complainer may be involved in a raft of difficulties, such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, running away from home or being in trouble with the police, so we cannot judge a case just on the victim’s lifestyle. We need to judge the allegation itself in looking at credibility and reliability.

However, I am not precious about how we do things in Scotland and I am not suggesting that we have the answer to everything. We will continually review how we do things as we go along. The NSCU has more than three years of experience. I think that it is a good thing to review and to ask ourselves searching questions, and we will continue to do that.

Good morning. Police Scotland’s submission mentions that an interim national vulnerable persons database—VPD—that has been developed to record all child and adult concerns includes a CSE category. We know that such a move will help to standardise police recording of CSE and that a national training package is planned to commence in a few weeks’ time. Although all of that is welcome, how will it be possible to capture the range of young people who are at risk when so little is still known about the scale of CSE? Would a database of suspected adult offenders not be equally valuable?

I am grateful for the recognition of the developments in information technology, which have been a challenge. Some of the committee’s questions that were directed at the police focused quite rightly on co-ordination difficulties when we had eight police forces under the ACPOS and Scottish Police Services Authority structure. With Police Scotland’s establishment, there has been fairly rapid progress not only on strategic plans but in moving towards delivery and having systems on the ground. As for having IT systems for vulnerable people and potential victims, it has been difficult to draw child sexual exploitation data from national systems because there has been no common way of marking it; indeed, I think that that has been an issue across the UK with regard to understanding the scale and nature of the problems that we are seeking to resolve.

Notwithstanding that and the fact that we have invested in trying to get everyone in Police Scotland up to the same standard as we move towards a national system, I agree that there is value in recording information on perpetrators. Indeed, national systems for doing that are already in place. There is, for example, the Scottish intelligence database, on which intelligence on perpetrators is recorded; if, through investigation, that intelligence becomes evidence, it not only remains recorded on the database but is held on national crime reporting systems and systems for reporting to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

We still face challenges in making links beyond Scotland; after all, this issue does not manifest itself only in Scotland. We have seen evidence of locally and geographically based models of grooming. The perpetrators in question might use IT, but they will also reside in a geographical community and might well know each other. Indeed, as has already been said, there might be different people who are targeting vulnerable young people because of their vulnerability and who might be part of a collective in a particular place. We need to do more work on joining these things up across the UK.

The interim VPD has been put in place, but do you have a timescale for implementing the full-scale VPD?

I do not have a timescale at the moment. As members might be aware, a number of proposals for a national ICT system for Police Scotland are in development and have yet to be approved. I understand that the proposal for a national IT system is in its very final stages—indeed, I believe that it is being considered as early as this week—but I am not in a position to make any announcements about its approval.

That system will be welcome once it is in place.

I have two or perhaps even three questions for Assistant Chief Constable Graham that bring us back to third sector involvement. First, Police Scotland has called for the sector’s increasing involvement, but why do you think that that is so important?

Are you asking why I think it important for the police to be involved with the third sector?

Yes.

There are a number of reasons, the first of which is that the people in the third sector often hear that child sexual exploitation might be happening. When the Lord Advocate was asked earlier about the reporting of grooming offences, it struck me that such offences get reported to the police only rarely, for the very reason that the perpetrators specifically target people knowing that the likelihood of their being reported is very low. As a result, we have to proactively seek out such activity. There are ways in which the police can do that, but there are different ways in which other agencies can do it.

In our experience, some third sector organisations that work day in, day out with young people and children are more likely to get a feel for something that is not right and to be in a position to draw that information to our attention and to share it with other agencies. I hope that they would come to the police at a very early stage—there is evidence of strong relationships across the country in that regard. We should be able to act on that information.

10:30

What needs to happen for that to take place? What structures do you foresee?

A number of things can be done. My experience of local partnership working is that the third sector does not always get an equal seat at the table alongside statutory partners. More could be done to facilitate greater consistency in third sector provision. There are some fantastic pockets of work, but they are generally done by small programmes or pilots that we would like to be rolled out. I am sad to say that the funding for some pilots and programmes that we have worked with, which are specifically to do with young runaways, has not continued. There could therefore be a gap in some third sector agencies’ ability to identify victims and share that information with agencies that can take action.

Last but not least, we have taken evidence from third sector agencies that have said to us that they have felt left out in the cold in relation to multi-agency meetings.

That probably echoes the point that I have already made. My experience of local partnership working is that the third sector does not always get an equal seat at the table. In some cases, that is because it does not have the same range of statutory duties; in others, it is because of local history and a dynamic that needs to develop. The creation of Police Scotland certainly gives us an opportunity to direct and co-ordinate across the whole country the level and nature of engagement with the third sector to ensure not only that we say that it is a key ally in safeguarding children but demonstrate that in every local community across the country. I know that some of the evidence that is coming forward from the third sector supports that.

Thank you.

Malcolm Chisholm has questions for the Lord Advocate and Alison Di Rollo.

We are in the middle of dealing with the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. As you know, there is the issue of the extension of standard special measures to victims of sexual offences, domestic abuse, trafficking and stalking. That is one side of it. Concerns have been expressed that there would also be a right of appeal against the granting of such measures, which would potentially include appeals against the granting of special measures to children. On balance, how will the changes contribute to the prosecution of cases that involve child sexual exploitation?

Having led evidence from child victims and victims of different ages in the witness box, through closed-circuit television and screens and at remote sites, and having dealt with evidence by commission, I think that the issue is very important. As you know, the measures came in a number of years ago. My initial feeling was that something would be lost if a victim gave evidence by CCTV from a remote site, for example. However, through experience, I have changed my mind. I do not think that we lose anything, and I think that it is very important that victims feel comfortable when they give evidence and that the criminal justice process aids witnesses who give evidence in our courts. It is absolutely right that we must ensure that there is a fair trial and that, if the accused has concerns about evidence being given by alternative means, they should have a right to be heard. It is about ensuring that there is always a balance of fairness in the trial process. I support the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and what is being done on means of giving evidence.

It might be worth while for the committee to hear about Alison di Rollo’s experience of the development whereby child victims give evidence in chief through a recorded prior statement, and are then cross-examined. That has been done in a number of cases recently, with some success.

A great strength of the NSCU is that with that specialism comes the confidence to use the discretionary measures that have been in place for a number of years, as the Lord Advocate said. We have learned through experience that the best way of taking evidence from a child or vulnerable person is to ensure that they are properly prepared and supported. For example, the child will have met the advocate depute at least once, if not a number of times, by the time he or she goes into the CCTV room and is questioned by them.

We are now more skilled in adducing evidence in a variety of ways. I have very positive personal experience of convictions resulting from the use of existing statutory provisions on leading the child’s prior statement as their evidence in chief—so it is there as the evidence—with the process then moving on to cross-examination. Years ago, that would have been quite daunting and we would have been very uncertain about it, but experience and convictions have shown that that is the way forward in appropriate cases.

With the confidence and the expertise in the NSCU, I can happily assure the committee that we are pushing the boundaries of existing provisions in the best way possible for victims to ensure that we get the best result possible in those cases. That extends beyond special measures. For example, we are in the appeal court arguing for the extension of the doctrine of mutual corroboration—for as long as that is applicable. It is from the experience of victims of child sexual exploitation and, indeed, victims of a raft of sexual offences that we bring the confidence to use more imaginative, more positive and more constructive ways of taking evidence.

Thanks. That is very helpful.

Training in general terms has come up with reference to the bill, but I want to ask more specifically about training for COPFS staff that is oriented towards child sexual exploitation issues. I think that you refer to training in your paper but not to specific training on child sexual exploitation issues. That therefore seems to be a big area for development.

Child sexual exploitation is a subset of child sexual abuse, as has been pointed out, and it will form part of the discussions and the training, particularly because we have the bespoke legislative requirements, to which the convener referred, which we must be familiar with and be prepared to use, where the evidence supports that. Rather than its being ring fenced as a separate issue on which training is delivered, child sexual exploitation is very much part of the continuum, as ACC Graham described it, of child sexual abuse, which we in the Crown Office must respond to and prosecute effectively.

I have a point on training. In preparing for this meeting, I noted a reference to training the police, prosecutors, teachers, judges and so on. I support that, but the one thing that seemed to me to be missing was the public’s role. There are two aspects to training the public. First, we must educate them to look out for the signs of abuse. Secondly, our fact-finders in serious cases—the jury—are members of the public, and we have thought long and hard about how we go about educating them.

We are introducing expert evidence in certain types of criminal trial, such as rape cases, to educate the jury. It is a common phenomenon that victims of rape do not immediately report to law enforcement, and in many cases there is no physical resistance during the commission of the crime. Some members of the public might be surprised by that evidence, and it is always raised as a point in favour of accused persons during a trial. However, from speaking to experts in the field, we know that there can be counterintuitive behaviour, so we need to educate the jury that such evidence is not significant. We are doing that through expert evidence. Jurors are hearing explanations for such behaviour.

It is the same with children who are victims of sexual abuse. We have to look at the circumstances. When preparing for trial, we have to anticipate the lines of defence and do what we can to deal with them and educate the fact-finders. That is all part of our training. It is not just about technical training and the need to prove the essential facts; it is also about training in presenting evidence and explaining it to jurors.

That is really interesting, and I could probably ask a lot more about it.

I think that I wrote to you recently about the selection of juries. Selection is one issue, but the members of a jury that has been selected are not familiar with these issues. I have a constituent who is an expert in this area and she said that when she was on a jury, she was appalled that the other members did not have any of the background awareness that she had. I do not know what we can do about that.

It is a very good point. In Scotland—and indeed down south—there is no jury research because of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. After a trial, a juror cannot be asked what they thought about the trial, what they considered significant and what they did not consider significant. There is therefore very little empirical research on juries in Scotland.

I am aware that, about eight or nine years ago, Lord Bonomy was allowed to do some research into the jury in a drug importation trial. The results were very interesting, and he found the process interesting.

There is a lot of research in Australia into how jurors go about things. Research into rape cases in Australia found that a significant proportion of jurors thought that delayed reporting was very significant and very much a point in favour of saying that the victim should not be believed.

We need to be careful because members of the public are being brought to the court to decide cases and we need to make the experience comfortable for them. We need to make sure that there is no fear of ridicule—and that there will be no research that intends to ridicule a particular jury. The principle of finality applies in Scotland as it does across most jurisdictions in the world, so we must always be aware of that.

If Malcolm Chisholm fancies a coffee, I could speak for an hour and longer about juries, because I am very interested in the subject.

I have a final general question that moves us on to something different. What powers, actions and resources are necessary to identify and combat those networks of perpetrators that operate not just locally but over wide areas of Scotland and possibly further afield?

That is probably a question for Malcolm Graham, if he wants to comment. Then I can talk about prosecutorial resources.

The question leads on from the previous point. We found upon juries being a flawed system but one that is better than all the rest for the very reason that they represent the communities that we are all here to serve. The wider point about training in its widest sense is that we need to raise awareness across all the communities that I serve, where people work and live and from where juries are drawn. In some respects, awareness has developed so far through media reporting, which is not always directed at the audience that might need it and does not necessarily get across the key messages that we think are important in educating people and raising awareness.

10:45

If I go back some 20 years, to when I first joined the police, I can see that the journey that we have been on has been astronomically quick and successful in its impact in dealing with domestic abuse and recognising domestic abuse as something that happens, that communities and society need to face up to, and that the police and other agencies need to deal with robustly to make it unacceptable in today’s society. On sexual crime, we have come a long way from the position in which it was considered unbelievable that somebody in a child’s family would abuse them—if it was spoken about, it certainly would not be reported to agencies, and if it was reported to agencies, the information would not be shared and action might not have been taken. In relation to child sexual exploitation, we have also come from a position in which there was a sense of disbelief about some of these unspeakable crimes, where what bound the individuals who were committing them was their lack of empathy for the victims and the families that they impacted upon, their deviance and their ability to avoid detection and identification.

When we consider all of that and recognise that we have senior leaders and men in senior places standing up and speaking about issues that predominantly affect women in society—rape and child sexual exploitation predominantly affect women—we can see the substantial progress that has been made.

In response to the question, there is a need for a more co-ordinated communications campaign that draws out the evidence that we have about the nature of the problem, recognises the journey that I have described in terms of the dynamics in society, which in the past have sometimes been resistant to understanding the evidence, and uses that as a means of changing societal views on what is acceptable, which generally precipitates reporting to the police. We must also ensure that we understand that the world is changing and that there are different means by which people offend; people can use the internet and online means, which can also be part of the co-ordinated marketing and communications campaign that I would recommend.

Assistant Chief Constable Graham said in his opening remarks that the priority is to keep people safe and that the legislation is there to ensure that that happens. What is the role of the risk of sexual harm orders—the RSHOs—in protecting people at risk from harm in cases in which the perpetrator has not been charged or convicted? There appears to be some evidence that they are not being widely used as yet but, given your earlier statement that the new police structure is an opportunity to improve operational effectiveness, how do you see their use developing over time?

Risk of sexual harm orders are part of a suite of statutory measures for managing perpetrators. I emphasise that, although prevention through identifying vulnerable victims is key to addressing child sexual exploitation, we must ensure that we are addressing and identifying perpetrators and intervening in a way that safeguards children, and that intervention may have to come at a point where we do not have sufficient evidence to make a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

It is always difficult to strike the balance because, if we do not have sufficient evidence to report somebody for a crime, invariably we do not have sufficient evidence to take something forward by one of the other statutory means. To some extent, the risk of sexual harm orders were intended as a means of filling that gap, and they have perhaps not been developed or used as much as they could have been under the eight legacy police forces. There are 17 risk of sexual harm orders in place at the moment.

Why is that? According to our information, Lothian and Borders, Strathclyde and Central Scotland police forces each made only two orders.

That relates to an earlier point about the 2005 act. Our experience is that, in cases in which sufficient evidence is gathered for a risk of sexual harm order, a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for a prosecution can be made. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to go for the lesser measure.

It is a discrete and unusual set of circumstances that fit the criteria. That does not mean that the RSHO is not a useful tool. Indeed, there are many pieces of legislation that we use infrequently but, when they are used, they are essential.

Sexual harm orders must be seen in the broader scheme of statutory measures. Scotland has 4,251 registered sex offenders who have been convicted, of whom 3,299 are in the community. There are 213 SOPOs, which, by my calculation, cover about 6.5 per cent of the population not in custody.

What is a SOPO?

A SOPO is a sexual offences prevention order. It is a statutory measure that allows the police, through the court, to set conditions that require a convicted or registered sex offender to do or not do certain things. The legislation is onerous with regard to how the police monitor such orders to ensure compliance. Indeed, if there is not compliance, offenders are arrested and brought back before a court. That is considered to be a grave matter.

The risk of sexual harm orders must be seen in the light of the circumstances in which we gather evidence, which will often lead us to getting sufficient evidence to report, and the suite of the other statutory measures by which we manage risk.

To build on Malcolm Graham’s point, I think that it is important not to look at the issue in silos. First, proceeds of crime legislation should be used where appropriate to disrupt and deter crime, so that any profit is not reinvested.

Secondly, NSCU has made developments with regard to the traffic commissioner. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the traffic commissioner’s office have entered into an information-sharing protocol. On conviction, information is shared with the traffic commissioner, who has powers to withdraw licences. That power could be used if, for example, someone convicted of child sexual abuse also turned out to hold a public service vehicle licence and was driving children to school. The power has been used in at least one case that I know of.

It is important that everything at our disposal is used.

We have received expressions of concern from child protection agencies that have made submissions to us about the leniency of sentencing for possessing and sharing abusive images of children. They feel that the sentencing is far from exemplary.

A case, with which I am sure you will be familiar, was drawn to our attention recently in which a man was convicted of sharing hundreds of images and films, but the sheriff was able to impose only a maximum one-year custodial sentence because it had been decided to prosecute him under summary procedure. What is the process involved in deciding whether to prosecute someone under summary or solemn procedure? What is your view on sentencing in that regard?

There are detailed prosecutorial guidelines—they are referred to as instructions—that procurators fiscal and Crown counsel must follow when deciding whether to mark such cases for indictment or summary.

The instructions are kept up to date and under consideration. We do not get everything right; sometimes, the odd marking decision is wrong in relation to forum, which is why we always take into account any comments made by the bench on that. If there is criticism that we have the marking wrong, we will look at that to try to learn the lessons and ensure that it does not happen again.

One thing that I have learned as Lord Advocate is not to comment on sentences imposed by the courts, which are entirely a matter for the court. However, if we take the view that a court has got a sentence wrong, we have the option, which we have exercised from time to time, to appeal on the basis that the sentence is unduly lenient.

There is also the option of the sentencing guidelines issued by the courts. I think that the courts have fairly recently issued such guidelines on child pornography. That horrific crime is not, as some people say, victimless; they might not be Scots or live in this country—they might be Thai or whatever—but they are still victims and we always take a very serious view of the matter. I can look out the figures after this morning’s meeting, but my understanding is that a significant proportion of such cases are prosecuted on indictment.

Assistant Chief Constable Graham talked about attitudes in recent years. Is sentencing reflecting the change in public attitude and the efforts that have been made to prosecute the individuals who have been identified?

Again, I should say that sentencing is a matter for the courts, but I can say that there has been a steady increase in the number of cases that have been identified by the police involving indecent photographs of children.

As with my comments about grooming legislation, I make it clear that, whatever the widely held perception might be, such cases are not often reported to the police. Indeed, the cases are rarely identified as a result of a third party coming forward as a witness; they are almost exclusively identified through the police’s proactive and targeted efforts, working with other law enforcement agencies.

In 2010-11, we identified 225 cases in Scotland; in 2011-12, we identified 375; and last year, we identified 595. That work will be taken on by the national child abuse investigation unit that I mentioned earlier, and it will be co-ordinated across the country. We certainly take very seriously the proactive nature of our duty to target offenders who make, distribute or possess indecent images of children.

Notwithstanding the Lord Advocate’s comments, with which I agree, about every image representing a victim of a serious crime, I note that, although there is no agreement in the large body of academic evidence about the percentage of offenders who will go on or intend to commit contact abuse, there is agreement that it is a high percentage of the people who are involved in making or sharing indecent images. It is not only the children in the images who are being victimised; our experience is that other children are at risk and need to be safeguarded as a result of our proactive work.

We will draw this session to a close in a couple of minutes, but I want to ask one final question. Several organisations have told us that criminal proceedings should not rely solely on young people giving an account of their abuse. In the past, they felt unable to speak to the police. The sense was that nothing could be done, and staff were left trying to work with young people while the risk continued. Are police and prosecutors seeking to use other forms of evidence in cases where CSE has been identified?

Absolutely. An important message that should be taken away from today’s meeting is that we need to build strong cases and not leave the victim out to dry. As the Lord Advocate has made clear at the outset, we want to support the credibility of the allegation, and NSCU takes any forensic and medical opportunities that might arise. Of course, the window for such opportunities is limited, and we are increasingly looking at social networking sites and mobile phone evidence for surrounding adminicles to support objectively what we have heard and understood from the victim.

Ultimately, everything comes back to the jury. We must support it and give it confidence about the allegation’s credibility. I repeat that building strong cases and using other sources of evidence are at the heart of what we at NSCU are doing in conjunction with the police.

I would endorse that. I believe strongly that there is a need for better education in schools. Alison Di Rollo attended a conference in America where the Federal Bureau of Investigation demonstrated how it had put a 12-year-old girl on social media, looking for friends. The board lit up like a Christmas tree, and the FBI was able to say, “He has a conviction.” There were people pretending to be 12-year-olds to become that girl’s friend. It is important that that message gets out to schools.

11:00

I would be grateful if the committee would consider one other thing, which is the law in relation to grooming. If someone grooms in Scotland and abuses in France, we can prosecute, in Scotland, the abuse in France and the grooming in Scotland. However, if they groom in Scotland and abuse in England and Wales, we can prosecute only the grooming in Scotland; we cannot prosecute the abuse in England and Wales. That is an issue with which we have had difficulties in the past.

There is extraterritoriality, which I proposed in relation to terrorist offences in the United Kingdom. It goes back to our experience of the Glasgow airport bombing, in which Scottish allegations were tried at Manchester Crown Court. Law enforcement in the United Kingdom as a whole should work together to do the best for the case and prosecute allegations in the most appropriate place.

I just flag that up as an issue. I know that it is not a direct response to your question but—

Notwithstanding that, it is a very important point.

The testimony or evidence of a witness is often the starting point, when a report of criminality has been made. However, as I have described, it is our duty to ensure that we proactively target perpetrators when no report has been made. Indeed, the very nature of the subject that we are speaking about means that such a report is unlikely to be made.

There has never been a time when we have used so many different tactics for identification, applied in a proportionate way the covert methodology that we may apply to organised crime groups, and brought to bear the skills, expertise and competence of people who work on homicide and rape inquiries to deal with the specific dynamics of child sexual exploitation. We recognise that it is an area in which expertise is required.

I finish the session by thanking the Lord Advocate, Ms Di Rollo and ACC Graham for attending and being so clear in their answers to questions. There may be still be some questions—we will write to you with those.

I will allow for a few moments for the witnesses to leave and for the witnesses for the next session to come to the table.

11:03 Meeting suspended.

11:06 On resuming—