Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 21 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1184 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

Is it the case, therefore, that cases involving serious sexual offenders or individuals who have been involved in serious violence would be the kind that professionals would be asked to deal with first?

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

You are asking professionals to look at their current and former case loads and make a judgment about any individuals that they have concerns about, and for those cases to be prioritised.

Criminal Justice Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

Would it not be more sensible to have a pilot with a significant tranche of cases being dealt with in that way and then to evaluate the outcome of that, rather than making a permanent shift to a position where virtual trials are a default, which would be a significant change in the Scottish legal system?

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

Concerns were first brought to people’s attention on 13 February, although I appreciate that the full extent of the problem might not have been apparent at that point. However, as yet, we have not got to the point at which cases are being looked at by those who deal with this work. Is that right?

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

I appreciate that somebody might be a dangerous individual but might not have been convicted of any serious offences. However, many of that cohort would have had convictions. Did you ask for that information?

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

Thank you.

Criminal Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

What is the cabinet secretary’s understanding of how prisons differentiate between different types of prisoners? For example, during Covid, children in prison have been subject to the same measures to combat virus infection as adults have. How do the prisons balance those rights and look at individuals, particularly those who might be more vulnerable?

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

I want to pick up the point that was made about other systems. Have you been able to work out the profile of the cases that we are talking about, particularly some of the more serious offences? How many sexual offenders are involved, for example? Given the huge workload that is involved in reviewing the cases, how have you prioritised them? Have you been able to prioritise some of the cases that would cause the public most concern? Perhaps you can outline your approach in layperson’s language.

Criminal Justice Committee

Risk Assessment in the Justice System

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

You have not actually asked professionals to do that yet.

Criminal Justice Committee

Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Katy Clark

The bill suggests the use of virtual trials as a default. From what you have said and from the information that we have been able to gather, it sounds as though, up to now, only a very small number of cases have gone ahead. It is therefore difficult to take a view, given that those cases might be the ones that are most suitable for virtual trials and everybody is in agreement.

We are having to grapple with the issue of why the holding of a virtual trial should be the default even when that is not agreed to by all parties, which is my understanding of how the provisions in the bill would work. I presume that, at the end of the day, it would be the sheriff who would decide whether it was appropriate for a case to be virtual. That is quite a massive shift.

The purpose of the bill as it has been presented to us, and the reason that we have been given for why it is going through in a far more speedy process than would normally be the case in the Parliament, is to continue practices that have been taking place during the Covid pandemic. However, the evidence that we are getting is that, in reality, virtual trials have not been taking place in significant numbers, and they have not been the default. There have been only a small number of them. What evidence do we have that the model that is proposed in the bill has been tested?