Justice 2 Committee, 04 Mar 2003
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Official Report
156KB pdf
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Item 2 is on our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Members will be aware that, after almost two years of examination, we have completed our inquiry. To tidy up a matter for the record, Bill Aitken will give us quick verbal report of the second visit that he and I made to the Hamilton office. We wanted to satisfy ourselves that the problems that had concerned us during our first visit, in June 2002, had been resolved.
Members will recall that our concerns about the Hamilton office arose from the two reports on the Chhokar murder inquiry and from the fact that, following our previous visit, we were not satisfied that appropriate action had been taken to deal with the difficulties that had occurred because of the Chhokar case. However, it should be noted that the Hamilton office suffered because two deputes were assigned full time to a long, complex inquiry into the Larkhall gas explosion, for which indictments have been served. There should now be more slack in the Hamilton system.
Our second visit to the Hamilton office was reassuring. We had a long session with the newly appointed area procurator fiscal, James Brisbane. He apologised for his evangelical approach, but we found it encouraging to see that he had his eye firmly on the ball and had taken steps to remedy the difficulties. It was pleasing that other members of staff with whom we spoke shared his enthusiasm and it was particularly interesting that the depute who deals with High Court matters was enthusiastic and positive about how things were being pursued in Hamilton.
The Hamilton office is particularly busy, as it serves an extensive geographical area that has a substantial population. The office also has more than its fair share of High Court business, given that numerous arrests for drugs offences are made in its jurisdiction, which extends a long way down the M74. The office deals with a substantial amount of high-level crime, which takes more time to prosecute than simple summary matters do. The use of ad hoc deputes has declined sharply since our previous visit, which indicates that progress has been made.
Our visit was positive, despite the time constraints. We went on a Wednesday morning and it was unfortunate that parliamentary business, which was to have been non-urgent, became urgent after our visit had been arranged. Our view is that a further visit to the Hamilton office might be made, because the inquiry will be on-going and our successor committee might want to ensure that everything is proceeding along the required lines.
I concur with Bill Aitken's view. Members have a written report of the visit, which provides detailed information. We did not speak to as many fiscals as we would have liked to, but our general impression was that things had markedly changed. As Bill Aitken said, we had been concerned about the use of ad hoc deputes, particularly in the summary team. However, steps have been taken to ensure that that no longer happens.
I was also pleased to hear that there is a positive approach to the recruitment of new fiscals, not only in Hamilton, but around the country. For example, the service wants fiscals from different types of background and it wants mature lawyers. A mix of people are becoming fiscals, which will benefit the system.
We noted the high number of promotions in the Hamilton office, which was to the credit of those who were promoted. We were pleased for those individuals, but we did not want a recurrence of the situation that we found on our previous visit, when vacancies had been unfilled for too long. However, we were assured that a board would shortly fill the current vacancies.
Our successor committee has been invited to return to the Hamilton office and it can consider whether it wants to do so. Our general impression was that things had changed for the better there. It is also worth noting that Hamilton is running the pilot youth court scheme. We spoke to the fiscal who is developing the scheme. As members will know, Hamilton was chosen to run the pilot scheme for electronic tagging. It is to the Hamilton office's credit that it was also chosen to run the youth court pilot.
Paragraph 12 of your report of the Hamilton visit states:
"At the time of the visit there were 3 vacant depute fiscal posts."
You also indicate that it was hoped that the first replacement would start on Monday 10 March. Was there any indication that the other two vacant posts would be filled quickly? Paragraph 14 of the report says that the Hamilton office has acknowledged that, until it has a full complement of fiscals, it cannot undertake its proposed further development. Filling the two vacant posts seems to be a key part of the development, so I do not want recruitment to be held up in any way.
That was the point that we made. The recruitment system in the service requires that a board be organised first of all—that is how recruitment is done. We did not spend a lot of time on the issue during our inquiry, but perhaps it is worth exploring whether there are enough boards and whether vacancies are being filled quickly enough. That is one reason for another visit—to see whether Hamilton has achieved a full staffing complement. Given the history of problems in the office due to promotions, we do not want to see constant vacancies. However, we have made that concern known and I am sure that it will be taken up.