Chamber and committees

I am sure that there is a very small chance of it happening, but is there a risk that an officer’s status could change from being a witness to a suspect? That might present a slight challenge in relation to the duty of candour and compliance with a co-operative approach.

It was criminal.

I welcome to the meeting Mr Justin Farrell, who is head of the criminal allegations against the police division of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I thank Mr Farrell for providing written evidence. We are looking to spend an hour or so on this evidence session.

I will kick things off by following up on Sharon Dowey’s line of questioning with the PIRC a short time ago. This relates to criminal allegations against police officers. We are aware that a criminal allegation against a police officer would be reported to the Crown Office based on “a reasonable inference” that they have committed an offence—that is different from what happens with ordinary members of the public. How do you identify potentially malicious or vexatious complaints within the system, and how is it ensured that that identification takes place as early as possible in the process, so that officers are not subjected to lengthy and unnecessary investigations?

That is interesting. Perhaps we underestimate the number of occasions when officers from outside the Police Scotland area are on duty in Scotland for a variety of reasons.

My final question relates to the duty of candour, which we discussed with the witnesses from the PIRC. You have responded to some questions on the delays experienced with investigations, and the PIRC has suggested incorporating a duty to co-operate into the duty of candour, under which officers would be required to provide operational statements timeously where their status is clearly that of a witness.

In relation to the introduction of a statutory duty of candour, can you advise whether CAAPD currently experiences issues arising from delayed statements—I think that the answer to that will probably be yes—or other information from Police Scotland, and whether the PIRC’s proposal on incorporating a requirement to produce operational statements would be helpful for CAAPD?

That answer is helpful.

Russell Findlay can ask his final question on the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have apologies from John Swinney. I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on two legislative consent memoranda—LCM-S6-43 and LCM-S6-43a—that have been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and Scottish Government officials. Ms Alison Morris is head of serious organised crime policy—divert and deter; Kristy Adams is a policy officer in the organised crime unit; and Ruth Swanson is a solicitor in the equalities and criminal justice division.

I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for this evidence session.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the legislative consent memoranda.

The next item of business is consideration of oral evidence on an affirmative instrument.

We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Susan Black, who is a senior policy officer in the civil law and legal system division, and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 2. I intend to allow up to 10 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I have a supplementary question about policy, practice and procedures. In one of the evidence sessions with witnesses with lived experience, we heard from a witness in relation to the provision of family liaison officers. We heard that her family had not been given support by a family liaison officer in the circumstances of an unexplained death—you are probably aware of the case. I found it quite distressing to hear that.

You have spoken about highlighting to Police Scotland issues that you are seeing emerge around good practice. Would the onus be on the PIRC to flag issues of the type that I have just set out, or would it perhaps be more on HMICS?

Absolutely. I watched with interest the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, Dr Plastow, giving evidence to this committee two or three weeks ago. As he described it, the work that he does is “quite niche”. It is certainly of great interest to everybody.

I would whole-heartedly support the option of going out to visit the commissioner. As you know, it can sometimes be difficult to bring commissioners or other witnesses to a committee because of tight work programmes. You will know that the Criminal Justice Committee has a significant workload relating to bills. I whole-heartedly support that suggestion.

You mentioned the police bill. We can start with that. We have already taken evidence that suggests significant failures not just in the conduct of police officers and others, but in the way in which those alleged acts of misconduct have been dealt with internally. A lot of reasons seem to be emerging about why that may be happening with specific regard to Police Scotland.

In answer to your question, I again cite the victims and witnesses commissioner proposal. Part of that has been based on what feels like a failure to date to grasp the nettle and respond to concerns and perceived failings in the conduct of organisations. That bodies should be held to account is a very understandable public interest. If that requires a legislative change or the creation or establishment of a commissioner who can represent the public, I understand that sentiment.