The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the Bonomy review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:22
On 23 April 2014, my predecessor as Cabinet Secretary for Justice announced agreement across parties that stage 2 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill should be deferred until after Lord Bonomy’s post-corroboration safeguards review completed its work. The Scottish Government initiated the Bonomy review after listening to views expressed during stage 1 of the bill about the impact of removing the general requirement for corroboration. Since taking up post in November, I have said that I would await the outcome of the review before reaching a decision on how to proceed on the matter.
Lord Bonomy has now completed his review and has provided recommendations on what further safeguards would be required following the removal of the corroboration requirement. Lord Bonomy’s reference group comprises 18 of the most knowledgeable and respected representatives from across the justice system, including key figures from victims and human rights groups, academia and the legal profession, and judges. Those experts have given the issue thorough and careful scrutiny, undertaking a substantial academic analysis and public consultation. I am grateful to the members of the group for the work that they have undertaken and for the considered and collaborative manner in which they took it forward.
The group’s proposals are substantial and complex. Taking forward all the changes would have a considerable impact on our justice system. One key finding is that research on jury decision making in Scotland is required before fully informed conclusions can be reached on issues relating to juries. In particular, the report of the review concludes that, without research, it is not possible to reach a definitive position on jury sizes, or on the not proven verdict. The report gives a provisional recommendation on jury majorities, but argues that that issue should also be subject to research.
The issues that Lord Bonomy has raised are of crucial importance, and we should take the time that is necessary to consider them fully.
The Scottish Government will look at Lord Bonomy’s detailed recommendations as a package, alongside the corroboration requirement, and will form a view on the best way forward. Our justice system must provide the appropriate balance so that the rights of suspects, victims and witnesses all get appropriate protection. It must, as far as possible, be fair to all. That is why I want to take a holistic approach and look at the issues in the round.
The Government will now work with stakeholders during the remainder of the current session of Parliament to develop and seek consensus on a package of proposals for criminal justice reform, including a full response to Lord Bonomy’s recommendations. Given that approach, I do not consider that there is sufficient time to complete that work before the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill resumes its parliamentary passage. On that basis, it is clear to me that proceeding with the removal of the corroboration requirement in the bill would be neither appropriate nor feasible. I am therefore making this immediate statement to inform Parliament of that development.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill should proceed with amendments to remove the provisions on corroboration and the related increase in the jury majority that is required for conviction. Removing the corroboration provisions from the bill will allow the bill’s other provisions to go forward as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits. Those provisions include important reforms to police procedure and practice, as well as the strengthening of rights to access to legal advice for suspects and improvements to sheriff and jury trials.
The Scottish Government still believes that there is a case to be made for the abolition of the corroboration requirement, but we will now consider whether to proceed with it, as part of a wider package, in the next parliamentary session. We should not forget that the original motivation behind the proposal to remove the general requirement for corroboration was to improve protections and access to justice for victims of crimes that are committed in private, including domestic abuse, sexual offences and abuse of older and vulnerable people. The Scottish Government remains committed absolutely and unequivocally to improving protections for victims and tackling inequality.
We all recognise the added difficulties of prosecuting crimes that are committed in private, and we all share the belief that victims of crime deserve access to justice. Despite that, it has not been possible to build a consensus around the corroboration rule at this time.
Strengthening access to justice remains a key priority for the Government. I believe that jury research could play a valuable role in developing a way forward, and there could be merit in looking at wider issues through such research. I will therefore look at Lord Bonomy’s proposals in that area, and I am open-minded about taking them forward.
Lord Bonomy has indicated that some of his recommendations would be worthwhile improvements, independent of corroboration reform. I will consider whether it is appropriate to take forward any of the review’s recommendations in the current parliamentary session. I will be very interested to hear the views of others in the Parliament on that possibility.
In the meantime, the Government is already making real improvements for victims by strengthening legal protections and providing direct support in relation to access to justice. We are making progress in addressing domestic abuse and sexual offences. Although overall crime rates—including violent crime rates—have fallen, more cases involving domestic abuse and sexual offences are reaching our courts. During 2013-14 alone, there was a 50 per cent increase in the number of charges with a domestic abuse background that were sent to court, and the number of people with a charge proved in court for sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault, increased by 22 per cent. Those increases reflect more proactive policing, better evidence gathering and consistent marking by procurators fiscal, and greater confidence among victims in coming forward.
We are extending the rights of victims through the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, and the Police Scotland pilots of domestic abuse disclosure—which is known as Clare’s law—are due to be completed in May.
Last month, we launched a public consultation on a range of proposals to help victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, including seeking views on a specific domestic abuse offence; measures to tackle the unauthorised publication of intimate images; and directions to juries in rape trials. The First Minister also announced funding of £20 million over three years to help speed up the processing of cases through the courts, to support victims through the criminal justice process and to address perpetrator behaviour in order to prevent further harm. Those measures have been widely welcomed by victims organisations and we will continue to work with them to support victims of crime.
In conclusion, I express my thanks to Lord Bonomy and his reference group for their hard work on this substantial review. Their findings will be valuable in ensuring a clear, fair and coherent justice system for Scotland, and I will now take the time to consider the review’s recommendations in detail.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill should proceed without the abolition of the requirement for corroboration, and I will consider corroboration alongside Lord Bonomy’s recommendations. The Government still believes that there is a case for abolition, but I have listened to the range of views on the issue. I will continue to listen to all who have an interest in our justice system and to work collaboratively towards a fairer Scotland for all.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask the cabinet secretary a question should press their request-to-speak button.
I join the cabinet secretary in praising the work of Lord Bonomy and his reference group, who have worked within a very specific remit to come up with what I think is a very thorough and sensible report.
Today, we are not debating whether there should be corroboration—that is a debate for another time—but I think that it right to contrast the cabinet secretary’s comments today with those made 14 months ago. What a difference 14 months can make. On that occasion, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice told Graeme Pearson that the Labour Party’s view that it did not make sense to go forward with the corroboration proposal was
“selling out ... its principles”
and that
“Labour has sold its soul and is in danger of selling out the victims of crime.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2014; c 28376.]
Today, however, I think that we have heard a very measured, considerate and mature response from the cabinet secretary, and he is to be commended for that. We will work with him in trying to move the issue forward in whatever way we can. In response to his question whether there is any agreement on taking forward certain issues, I think that, if we can reach a consensus, we will work with the Scottish Government on seeing whether that is possible.
I want to put down a number of questions for the cabinet secretary to consider. There is a debate to be had about whether the waiver of legal advice is, in fact, informed consent. Will he consider that issue carefully? Will he ensure that if any changes are made to police procedures and practice there are adequate resources for video evidence? Will he also ensure that, with any changes, adequate resources are available for the hard-worked and overpressed fiscal service? Finally, will he give some consideration to the question that Lord Bonomy has considered of publishing the Lord Advocate’s guidelines, and whether consultation on and publication of those guidelines would prejudice the independence of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office?
My primary focus, as members will appreciate, is to move the issue forward. My focus in doing so is on improving access to justice for individuals who continue to have difficulty in having cases brought before the courts, particularly for crimes committed in private. I believe that there is common ground across the chamber for achieving that.
I also believe that the questions and associated points that the member raised show why we need to take time to consider Lord Bonomy’s recommendations and their implications.
For example, if we were immediately to move to the introduction of audiovisual recording of all police interviews, there would be a significant resource implication, as well as procedural and training implications, for the police. Although it would be worth developing those issues outwith consideration of the whole issue of corroboration, we must consider them in the round.
I therefore believe that the best way in which to deal with Lord Bonomy’s recommendations, and with the corroboration rule, is as a package. We should take the time to engage with stakeholders to get their views on those matters and then consider the best approach to moving forward, with that primary focus on improving access to justice for those who feel that they are being denied justice as a result of the present arrangements in our criminal justice system. That is the approach that I intend to take with the report and its recommendations.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I very much welcome his confirmation that the abolition of the requirement for corroboration will be removed from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That is most certainly the right thing to do, especially given the Bonomy review’s recommendation that the requirement for corroboration should be retained for hearsay evidence and confession evidence.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary seemed open to the implementation of the third way, which the Scottish Conservatives have called for since it was omitted from the Carloway review, and which Lord Bonomy was not allowed to consider in his remit. I refer to the retaining of corroboration while including it in a wider review of the law of criminal evidence.
Given that, will the cabinet secretary now consider some of the helpful and effective recommendations of the review group, for example those in relation to the Judicial Institute for Scotland, to clarifying and simplifying the language used in jury directions and to varying the means of communicating directions to juries?
To address the cabinet secretary’s specific question, I believe that the recommendations could be taken forward in this parliamentary session.
One of the reasons why I wish to take time to consider the recommendations as a package of measures is to ensure that the balance within our criminal justice system is fair and reasonable. I wish to take the necessary time to do that.
I am open to the views of other stakeholders on some of the specific recommendations that Lord Bonomy made, which perhaps could be introduced as part of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill at a later stage if there is a consensus on how that should be done. I am open to considering those issues, but we must consider them as a package, taking into account their overall impact on our criminal justice system.
The member referred to jury directions. As she will be aware, we have just started a consultation on jury directions for rape cases; that is part of our proposals and consultation on domestic abuse. There is scope to consider taking some of that work further.
I do not want to take a piecemeal approach to Lord Bonomy’s recommendations. We need to consider them as a package and to consider what impact they would have in the overall balance of our criminal justice system. That is the approach that I intend to take, with that specific focus on improving access to justice for those who experience crimes in private and who continue to feel that their cases are not being given the right hearing in court because of the arrangements that are presently in place.
We are due to finish this session at 2.50 and there are 10 members who wish to ask a question, so I urge members to keep their questions brief.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I refer him to the Justice Committee’s stage 1 report of last year in which, at paragraph 27, we said:
“The majority of Committee Members are of the view that the case has not been made for abolishing the general requirement for corroboration and recommend that the Scottish Government consider removing the provisions from the Bill.”
The committees of this Parliament are sometimes told that they are not doing their job, but in this case the Justice Committee did its job, and thank goodness the Government listened. Does the cabinet secretary agree?
I was a member of the Parliament’s justice committees for almost seven years, and I think that the Justice Committee does a very good job. As Cabinet Secretary for Justice I have appeared before the committee a number of times, and it is always diligent in its scrutiny of the decision making and actions of Government and its ministers.
I recognise the role that the committee has played in considering the proposed abolition of the requirement for corroboration and the concerns that have been raised in that respect. As I said in my statement, I recognise that consensus has not been reached on the issue of corroboration and that views are polarised.
However, I highlight that the original purpose for which the abolition of the requirement for corroboration was proposed was to improve access to justice for those who experience crimes in private. I have no doubt that the Justice Committee will, in considering the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill later this year, be interested in how we progress Lord Bonomy’s recommendations as a package of measures, and how that sits alongside the corroboration rule. I have no doubt that the committee will want to scrutinise in due course any proposals that come from Government.
In my closing speech in the debate on 27 February last year, I pleaded with the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice to remove the corroboration provisions from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill to enable further consideration. I was met with what seemed to be a very hostile response, so I welcome the statement from the current cabinet secretary.
Lord Bonomy’s review group identified significant issues, such as dock identification. I am not sure that the final year of this session of Parliament would allow us sufficient time to address that issue, but I wonder whether the matter could, with regard to the case for ending dock identification and the means to do so, be examined separately.
Elaine Murray makes a reasonable point about dock identification. However, removing dock identification from the court process would place a significant burden on our prosecutors and police as part of the process that they would have to put in place prior to a case coming to court.
On the surface, some of these initiatives may appear to be fairly straightforward, but the potential resource implications in other parts of the justice system could be significant. It is therefore important that we do not just jump ahead and decide to select one or a couple of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations without considering the full impact further along in the system on prosecutors and our police service.
It is worth keeping in mind that the Bonomy review group has focused primarily on protections for the accused. We need to ensure that any of the measures that we take forward do not create an imbalance in our system that could be difficult to justify. At this stage, therefore, I do not want to commit to implementing any specific recommendations until we have worked through the full practical implications, but I am happy to ensure that, as we take forward the work with stakeholders, we inform Parliament on what we believe is the best approach.
I argued for and secured the suspension of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill process until the outcome of the Bonomy review had been reached. Lord Bonomy’s report today vindicates that approach, because it exposes the scale of the task that the Parliament would have faced had Kenny MacAskill had his way and the bill had already become law. We should not forget, however, that Kenny MacAskill was backed by the entire Cabinet. I wonder whether the current cabinet secretary regrets his Government’s obstinacy on the issue.
On a more positive note, I share the cabinet secretary’s wish to secure a better conviction rate for crimes that are committed in private. Research into jury decision making could be crucial in finding a way forward. Can the cabinet secretary explain his thinking with regard to progressing that important matter?
The first thing that I should say is that I am proud of this Government’s determination to improve access to justice for those who are denied access to justice. We make no apology for that and we will continue to take forward an approach that we believe will deliver that particular objective.
On the specific point around jury research, I am conscious that this issue has been raised by a variety of stakeholders in the past with regard to the benefits that could come from the practice. There were concerns about its potential impact on the contempt of court positions but, as Lord Bonomy has pointed out, there is a mechanism by which that can be done that would overcome that particular obstacle. That is why I am open minded on the issue of research. However, I am open minded on it on the basis that not only will it enable us to consider the issues of jury size, majorities and the three verdicts, but it will allow us to consider some wider issues. I want to consider it on the basis that there could be value in considering some other issues in our justice system, not just on the basis of the specific issues that Lord Bonomy recommended it for. Again, as we move forward, I want to consider what that process might look like.
The cabinet secretary will appreciate that there remains widespread public concern about the historically low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual offences and domestic abuse. Can he offer anything further in the interim to address those concerns?
As I set out in my statement, considerable progress has been made in relation to domestic abuse and sexual offences cases reaching the courts, with the significant increase that we have seen since 2013-14. We want that work to continue. One of the benefits that we have had from the establishment of Police Scotland is the specialist investigations unit, which has been able to give much more focus and dedication to such crimes and has allowed greater expertise to be deployed in tackling domestic abuse and sexual offences cases.
The other aspect concerns the additional £20 million that the First Minister announced several weeks ago. That relates to ways in which we can improve the operation of our criminal justice system with regard to getting cases through the system more quickly, providing support to victims in the course of a case going through the courts and considering ways in which we can speed up the intervention methods that can help to reduce the occurrence of such offences in the first place. That involves initiatives ranging from the Caledonian scheme right through to the violence reduction programmes that we run in our schools. All those measures will allow us to continue to improve the ways in which people experience our justice system and to reduce the levels of domestic and sexual violence in our society.
Alongside that, I intend to work with stakeholders on the recommendations from Lord Bonomy to consider which of those measures can assist us to improve further access to our justice system in Scotland.
I note from the cabinet secretary’s statement that the Police Scotland pilots of domestic abuse disclosure—which is known as Clare’s law—are due to be completed in May. Will the cabinet secretary say whether resources are to be made available to roll out that good practice and whether we will see progress on the issue during this session of Parliament?
We have already seen progress during this session of Parliament in the Police Scotland pilots. The additional £20 million that we have announced will allow us to consider what other programmes can be taken forward.
The feedback that I have had on the domestic abuse notification scheme pilot has been positive. People value the scheme and Police Scotland believes that it is valuable. I am sympathetic to the scheme. It, too, will form part of the work that we will take forward, and we will be looking to see what we can learn from the pilots, with a view to considering how those lessons can be applied on a national basis.
Given that the motivation for removal of the requirement for corroboration was improved access to justice for victims of crime—an aim that I supported at the time and still support—what steps is the Scottish Government now taking to help victims?
One of the areas of work that we are taking forward is contained in the provisions in the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, which will improve the way in which victims’ rights are promoted and supported in our criminal justice system. Alongside that, since we announced the additional £20 million for domestic violence organisations, we have been engaged with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and the ASSIST—advice, support, safety and information services together—project, all of which are considering ways in which we can take forward more proactive measures to support individuals who experience domestic violence, and how we can improve the system through use of those resources.
Alongside that, as I mentioned earlier, I am keen to see being developed preventative measures such as the Caledonian system, which has already been rolled out in some parts of the country. It can help to reduce the risk of perpetrators of domestic violence committing similar offences again in the future.
The additional resource will allow us to scope more work in the area and to consider how the system can be rolled out in other parts of the country, and so help to support victims much more effectively.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that on two occasions now I have consulted on reform of the three verdicts and on jury majorities. Notwithstanding the report from Lord Bonomy’s group, does the cabinet secretary recognise that the consultations that I have undertaken show widespread support among the legal and academic professions and the public for progress on the three-verdict system? Given that I have achieved the necessary support from colleagues across Parliament to take forward my member’s bill proposal, will the cabinet secretary meet me to discuss how we can make progress? I ask because the issue has been hanging around for far too long and needs to be genuinely addressed.
I acknowledge the work that Michael McMahon has done on the matter over several years, and I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the issue. I am mindful, though, that the Lord Bonomy review group does not feel that it can make a recommendation on the three verdicts that we have at present until the research on juries has been undertaken. That is why I am open-minded about undertaking that particular type of research. Of course, that is also an issue for Michael McMahon to consider with regard to how he wishes to pursue his member’s bill, but I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Three more members wish to ask questions. I intend to take them all, given the importance of the issue, but I ask for the questions to be brief.
As a member of the Justice Committee, I regret that we did not manage to reach a consensus on the corroboration rule. In the light of the questions today and the reactions of different members, I ask the cabinet secretary why he cannot provide clarity as to why not all Lord Bonomy’s recommendations can be taken forward in this parliamentary session.
As I have mentioned in a couple of my responses, there are a number of significant complexities in respect of those particular recommendations. For example, there is the issue around the jury research in relation to verdicts, majorities and how we operate our jury system. It has been indicated that that work could take some time; it could take more than a year—possibly two years—to complete the detailed research that is necessary in order to form the right decisions on the matter. It is simply not possible to fit that work in in this parliamentary session.
On dock identification, although it appears to be straightforward, there are potential consequences that have to be considered in great detail. I mentioned audiovisual recording of police interviews in response to Hugh Henry’s question; again, the potential resource implications of that and the practical implications for the police are considerable. There is insufficient time within this parliamentary session to allow us to progress the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill as it stands, to look at all those issues fully and to consider them in sufficient detail before we can arrive at a final decision.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. He rightly referred to the report as a “protection” for the accused, and the report reiterates a concern that was picked up in a report that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland delivered to the cabinet secretary a number of months ago about suspects waiving their right to legal assistance at police offices and the implication that the cost of that is a factor. Will the cabinet secretary lay before Parliament regulations that will disapply the provisions of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, which cause suspects to pay for the cost of legal assistance that is provided to them at police stations? That is something that the cabinet secretary could do to enhance protections straight away.
I am conscious that Lord Bonomy has flagged up that issue in his review. As John Finnie will be aware, there are already provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill on vulnerable adults waiving their right to legal representation. I will, of course, consider all the recommendations, including the one that the member has highlighted, in considering the best way forward. I will also consider the views of the member, of the Justice Committee and of other stakeholders before we come to a final decision on which of the recommendations we will take forward in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
The cabinet secretary has talked a lot about crimes that are committed in private. He will know that many of the organisations that are involved in the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men’s violence against women, including Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and Zero Tolerance, were supportive of withdrawing the need for corroboration. If the corroboration reform is not to go ahead at this time, what steps will the cabinet secretary take to address those concerns? Will he meet the cross-party group to help to address them?
As part of our response to the Bonomy review today, we have been engaging with stakeholders that have an interest in the matter. A range of stakeholders have in the past expressed their views on abolition of the corroboration rule. We will continue to engage with them. I am, of course, more than happy to engage with the cross-party group at some point.
As I mentioned, we have a specific consultation on a domestic abuse offence and we are considering how we can use the additional £20 million to improve support in our court system for victims of domestic abuse. The provisions of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 are there to support all victims, including victims of domestic violence, sexual violence and rape. All the measures that we have been taking forward are leading to improvements in our criminal justice system, so we will continue to move them forward. Alongside that, we will look at which aspects of the Bonomy package we can take forward to improve the way in which individuals access our justice system.
Christina McKelvie can be absolutely assured about the Government’s commitment to improving access to justice for those who continue to experience crimes in private and who experience difficulty in getting justice through our court system. That will continue to be a central focus of our improvements to the justice system.
Previous
Topical Question Time