Plenary,
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Official Report
392KB pdf
Presiding Officer's Ruling
Before moving on to the revised business motion, I shall make some remarks, as a matter of courtesy and information, about the sub judice rule. I invite members' attention to what I am going to say.
Schedule 3 to the Scotland Act 1998 requires the Parliament to include a sub judice rule in its standing orders. That requirement is expressed in rule 7.5. Rule 7.5.1 states:
"A member may not in the proceedings of the Parliament refer to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer."
Rule 7.5.3 states:
"Where any member refers to a matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active the Presiding Officer may order that member not to do so."
Those are the rules that the Parliament adopted.
The phrase "proceedings of the Parliament" includes lodged motions. The original motion that Mr Russell lodged was clearly sub judice and he agreed to my request to withdraw it and lodge a new motion, which I accepted within the rules. It was then scheduled for debate. I was informed verbally and subsequently in writing that, because of the current civil action against, among others, Scottish Executive ministers, no minister would be put up to respond to the debate. That is entirely and properly a matter for the Executive and had no bearing on my application of the rule. I informed Mr Russell of that and he saw no need to withdraw his motion. He helpfully volunteered to show me a draft of his speech in advance to help to avoid any sub judice problems. Through business managers and the clerks, I advised all members wishing to speak in the debate to seek advice from my office on the application of the sub judice rule. I trust that members will therefore recognise that I was keen to assist members by allowing the scheduled debate to proceed.
When I read Mr Russell's draft, I took the view that it fell foul of the sub judice rule. I accordingly informed Mr Russell and the Parliamentary Bureau yesterday. I recommended to the bureau that, rather than lose a members' business opportunity because of my ruling, it should consider substituting another topic. That is the reason for the motion that you are about to consider.
The broadcast and written media must take their own view on the application of the rules of contempt of court and make their own decisions accordingly. Freedom of speech has a central place in the Parliament and the ability of members to represent their constituents is an essential and cherished duty of us all. Alongside that, however, we all must have regard to the interests of justice, including the interests of all parties to a court action. There is no question of gagging parliamentary debate on the McKie case. It would have been perfectly in order for it to be debated here at any time after the Minister for Justice's statement in June 2000 and before the civil action became active in March this year. It will become possible again to debate the matter once the court case has been concluded. In the meantime, it is vital to recognise the proper place of the courts and of the Parliament. That is my ruling.