Chhokar Inquiries
Members will recall that, last week, we discussed briefly what action the committee might want to take in relation to the Surjit Singh Chhokar case. We asked Michael McMahon, the race reporter, to write a paper outlining the options that are available. Rather than including this item with the other reporters' reports, we put this matter on the agenda separately so that we could be open about the fact that we are discussing it.
Before I ask Michael to go over his paper, I should point out that legal activity associated with this case is still continuing. In fact, I think that it is taking place today. I therefore ask the committee not to stray on to any issues to do with the trials that may be sub judice and to stick to the inquiries and the action that the committee might take in future.
The first thing to say is that I support what you have just said. The major consideration is the fact that the Lord Advocate has pointed out that there are still on-going legal proceedings in relation to the Chhokar case. That has influenced the report that I have written, and I thank the clerks for their help in pulling everything together. Without their help, we would not have anything to discuss today.
When he announced what he intended to do in response to the Chhokar case, the Lord Advocate made a number of points, a couple of which may be considered dubious or even spurious. For example, I just cannot understand the thinking behind the suggestion that any inquiry should stop anti-racist policies being developed in this country. Nor can I understand why, when a case has seriously dented race relations in Scotland, as the Chhokar case has, cost should be a consideration in discussing whether we should investigate the matter properly.
Some of the arguments about why we should have one type of inquiry or another can be questioned, but the committee must focus on the legal considerations, which fall into two categories. As you said, convener, some aspects of the case may be sub judice in relation to outstanding matters. What the committee can ask for under the Scotland Act 1998 is another consideration that could steer it in a specific direction. The sub judice considerations are fairly obvious; the other considerations may be a bit more contentious. If we required reports or other documents that the Lord Advocate is not willing to give us, we would have to enter into a debate with him about what we are or are not allowed to see, which could create problems for an inquiry by the committee.
Once we have considered the reality of where we can go and what we can do, we are left with five options, which are listed at the end of my report. The first option is to do nothing, which is not what the committee intended. From the outset, we said that we wanted to consider the matter.
The second option is an immediate committee inquiry, but there are problems with that. I do not think that our work load would allow us to conduct an inquiry that would enhance our understanding of the Chhokar case in any way.
The third option is a joint committee inquiry. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is considering different aspects of the case and we could tie in with that, but there are cost implications. I know that I said that cost should not be a consideration for a public inquiry, but parliamentary committees have budgetary constraints that I do not think we could overcome, even by conducting a joint inquiry.
The fourth option is to invite Dr Jandoo to give evidence, but he would be constrained in what he could tell us and we do not want to prejudge his conclusions. Rather than helping the situation, that would form more of a barrier to the full picture being created.
We are then left with the fifth option, which is to await the outcome of the two inquiries that the Lord Advocate has set up. At that point, we can decide whether we would like to take the matter further in committee or add our voice to calls for a public inquiry, either because the full picture has not emerged or because there have been problems with the two inquiries. If we were to say at the outset that we do not believe in the value of the two inquiries, that could prejudice our view of their outcome. We should not say before we have heard their conclusions that we do not believe their work will be enough to satisfy the needs of the family or the wider ethnic minority communities.
I ask the committee to await the outcome of the inquiries. That is what we did with the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group report. I think that we enhanced that report by making some recommendations that were accepted by the Executive. If we await the outcome of the inquiries in this case, we could do the same again by filling in any gaps. If we are not capable of doing that, we should then add our voice to calls for a public inquiry. Doing that would leave options open. Doing any of the other things would close off options. The recommended action is the best way of enhancing the process of inquiring into what happened in the Chhokar case.
It is not inconceivable that we could invite the Lord Advocate and Jim Wallace to come to the committee early in the new year to discuss general issues relating to the justice system. Since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry steering group report, we have considered a number of issues that the minister and the Lord Advocate could discuss with us. That would allow us to keep ourselves up to date with how the situation is developing. While we are waiting for the inquiry conclusions, we can still ask questions of the people in authority who have access to information that could be useful to us.
My personal opinion is that the Lord Advocate did not put forward particularly convincing arguments as to why the inquiries should be held in private. On the other hand, I do not feel that the committee is equipped to conduct its own inquiry. We would have to appoint an adviser. By the time that we had done that, at least one of the reports would be available to us. Michael McMahon's recommendation that we agree to option 5 is therefore probably the best suggestion.
The committee would want to consider specific elements of the entire case from beginning to end. The issue for us is not legal competence so much as racial discrimination. It is worth finding out what else is happening at the moment so that, early in the new year, we can invite Jim Wallace, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, who I know has spoken to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and is involved in a study of racism in the Crown Office. A thematic inspection report of the police is due out in January; I think that it will be entitled "Without Prejudice". Although that report is not linked to the Chhokar case, the committee could decide to consider both issues together to give us an overview of the police and judicial system.
If we agreed to conduct our own inquiry, it may raise hopes that we can achieve something that I do not think we can achieve. However, as Michael McMahon suggested, if we are unhappy with the outcome of the two inquiries, we can then add our voice to the demand for a public inquiry to take on board a wider range of evidence.
That is probably the best way forward. There is no point in rushing into action just for the sake of doing something. It is better to wait and evaluate the results of the inquiries that are going to happen anyway. We can then proceed on the basis of our evaluation of the inquiry reports. The thematic inspection report will also be relevant to the general issue of how people are treated in the criminal justice system.
Do members agree to adopt recommendation 5 of Michael McMahon's report?
Members indicated agreement.
I should write to the conveners of the justice committees, enclosing a copy of the Official Report of today's meeting. It may be possible in future to establish a joint sub-committee to examine areas in which there is a crossover between legal competence and discrimination. We may also want to take evidence jointly at a future date. Do members agree that I should do that?
Members indicated agreement.