Justice 2 Committee, 31 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 31, 2001

Official Report 132KB pdf

---

Chhokar Reports

Item 2 is the reports on the case of the murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar. The purpose of today's discussion is to consider the reports and identify the issues that are relevant to the Crown Office inquiry. I have taken the liberty of putting it that way but it is open to members to decide how to deal with the reports from Anthony Campbell and Raj Jandoo.

For your information, the Equal Opportunities Committee considered the Raj Jandoo report at its meeting yesterday. That committee agreed to hold a meeting before Christmas to take evidence from the Deputy First Minister, the law officers, the Chhokar family and any other relevant individuals and organisations. They have chosen a Lanarkshire venue in order to be sensitive to the Chhokar family's needs. This committee will consider how to take account of the reports for its own inquiry. We have to consider how to avoid duplicating the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee.

I discussed this issue with the clerks prior to putting it on the agenda. I started off thinking that we should concentrate our efforts on Anthony Campbell's report. However, the clerks suggested that we cannot separate the two reports and I agree. Jandoo's report contains quite a bit about the feelings in the Crown Office that seem to be relevant to the issues that we are considering. It would be useful to hear members' views.

I welcome the fact that the Equal Opportunities Committee will be taking a lead on the issue. Although the report is in a legal context, there are much broader issues for the community and every one of us as individuals to consider—issues such as how we think about people from different cultures and different religions. The Equal Opportunities Committee is best placed to deal with that broad remit.

Nonetheless, I concur with the view that Dr Jandoo's report is equally relevant to the Justice 2 Committee and that we should consider the legal aspects of the matter.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson. There are implications for wider society, not just for the legal system. We have to be sensitive and careful that there are not a lot of different committees going off and doing their own thing, even though they might have a legitimate interest in the matter. Everything has to be co-ordinated in a sensitive way.

I understand also that there may be a debate on the reports in Parliament in the near future. That will give a clear lead to any committees on what we are going to do.

In terms of the legal situation, some of the recommendations and points that have been made fit neatly with the inquiry that we will undertake. If we take evidence, we should take it in that context. Given that evidence will be given in public to the Equal Opportunities Committee, perhaps some or all of us should be at that meeting so that we do not duplicate it with extra meetings, and so that we get the information that we require for our inquiry. If members go to the meeting with that intention, it may be a way of dealing sensitively with two issues at the same time.

I will share with the committee the outcome of yesterday's Parliamentary Bureau meeting. There will be a full debate on both reports next Wednesday afternoon. The debate is scheduled to last the whole afternoon. The only caveat is the current health of Mr Chhokar senior, who you are aware is unwell. The indications are that at this stage, the family has no objection to the proceedings going ahead next Wednesday, but that caveat applies.

With regard to how this committee should address the issue, I concur with the view that we have an input to make on the Campbell and Jandoo reports. Clearly, we have to address a number of issues in both reports that have significant portent for the administration of justice in Scotland. There is merit in the suggestion that we should have a reporter on the proceedings at the Equal Opportunities Committee. As Scott Barrie said, this matter must be dealt with sensitively and sensibly. There will come a time in this unhappy matter when we have to move forward. We do not wish the family to be subject to unnecessary harassment by having to address more than one committee. The reporter suggestion is eminently sensible.

I accept Scott Barrie's suggestion that we should appoint someone, or seek a volunteer, to liaise with the Equal Opportunities Committee. Obviously, I will speak to the convener, as I do regularly on matters with which we both deal. Is someone willing to commit to going to the Equal Opportunities Committee meeting?

Do we know where the meeting will be held?

We do not have the details yet.

I assume that it will be in Hamilton.

We have been told that it will be in Lanarkshire. I suppose that a venue is being sought at the moment.

Hamilton is a good venue.

I am on two major committees—this one and the Rural Development Committee—so it would be difficult for me to fit in being the reporter.

The meeting will be in the west of Scotland, so I would be prepared to go if no one else wishes to go. It is probably more convenient for me to go, provided that it fits in with my timetable.

We do not know when the meeting will be held, so we should not appoint someone and then find out that they have a timetable clash. We all have an interest in the issue. I did not volunteer because I do not know whether the meeting would fit in my timetable and because of geographical considerations. We should leave it to the convener to make sure that someone, or perhaps more than one person, is able to attend to report to this committee. I know that the convener has an interest in this matter and attended part of one of the trials. I appreciate that you have other demands on your time and may not wish to be a reporter, convener, but you may wish to represent the committee.

I thank Bill Aitken for making that offer and hope that it will stand when we get the details. Next week, when I have the details, we can return to the subject and place on the record who is to be the reporter.

I take it that the committee is agreed that we will consider both reports. Are members happy that we consider them in the context of our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?

We need to do that because of the on-going inquiry. However, we have already accepted that the inquiry will take some months and it is important that we consider the reports fairly soon. I agree with considering them as part of the inquiry as long as we do so sooner rather than later.

We will ensure that any witnesses whom members want to question on the matter will be incorporated into our work plan fairly soon. There are spaces to allow that to happen.

Are there any preferences as to which witnesses we should call?

If at all possible—on humane grounds—we want to avoid calling in the family unnecessarily. There is one witness, Mr MacDonald, the depute fiscal at Hamilton, who may well have some valuable insight into the matter. We will have to hear from one or possibly both of the law officers eventually.

I agree. I suggest that we should also hear directly from Anthony Campbell. I would like to go into some depth with him about the legal issues and the issues drawn out in the report about lack of preparation and so on.

The Solicitor General for Scotland has commented in the press about the 110-day rule. It is worth considering incorporating that into our work. We have said that our inquiry will consider all the issues that may put pressure on the Crown Office. Whether the issuing of fiscal fines for more serious offences is a pressure point, it seems that, given that that has already been raised in the public domain, we may have to consider it to be a pressure point in the system, albeit a sensitive one. The Solicitor General made comments on it at the weekend and we must take note of that.

I, too, noted the comments on the 110-day rule. It is slightly ironic that in today's climate in the public service in which, as in business, we are seeking to set targets, measures and incentives for people, the suggestion that we relax that particular rule has arisen. I would need to be very convinced of the benefits before agreeing that the time should be extended. It is a useful and beneficial source of pressure in that it sets a standard that we must ensure is sufficiently funded so as to be met. On the other hand, if I hear good evidence from elsewhere, I may be persuaded otherwise. I want to put it on record that it would take an awful lot to persuade me that the 110-day rule should be relaxed.

I do not disagree. Given the number of members nodding their heads, it seems that most of the committee agrees with you. However, the issue is whether we should examine something that has been questioned. I support what you said about having to go a long way to change the rule but as the issue has been raised, I do not think that we should ignore it.

Do we have an indication of the Executive's intention on the matter? Is there a possibility that the 110-day rule will be dealt with before the publication of our report? I share your concerns. Scots law operates on the basis of the presumption of innocence and people should not be remanded in custody without being tried. I am all for banging up people who are guilty and who have been properly sentenced, but no one is guilty until they have been proven guilty. That is an important issue.

There is no suggestion that the Executive is even going to look at the issue. The Solicitor General has simply commented in the press on the matter. Perhaps we should seek clarification in writing from the Solicitor General on what he said. Other people have discussed the issue—no more than that. Including it in our discussion would make our inquiry comprehensive.

Irrespective of recent comments in the press, the issue is of interest to our inquiry. We are investigating pressures on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and even if the matter is not being raised all the time, if it has come up as a problem, it is worth taking evidence. That would be useful, even if only to allow us to say that we hold the 110-day rule sacrosanct. You are right to highlight it as an issue, convener.

Thank you.

Meeting continued in private until 12:41.