Chamber and committees

So that might not necessarily be jail time.

Anyone?

Well, I am going to make a suggestion. I hope that you would agree that we need to have a wider discussion. With regard to your bill, you have said that you think that the solution is telling boys that domestic abuse is wrong—

But I am suggesting that—

That was a helpful exchange. I just want to put on record that I hope that my intention here is not misunderstood—I do support the use of virtual attendance. The cabinet secretary has clarified that, whatever the location, the proceedings will be delivered with solemnity et cetera, which is important. I do not think that the committee should settle for anything less; if this is going to be a permanent feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, we have to ensure that it is done to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we all recognise that it can reduce delays and make things easier for victims.

I should say that it was not me who brought up the issue of locations. The Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association raised concerns about people giving evidence from home, and it was mentioned by another witness, too. That is why I addressed it. I share their concerns, although I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, and the cabinet secretary makes an important point when she says that someone could have a specific reason for giving evidence from home. I think that that would be okay, but I am not in favour of people giving evidence at home for the sake of convenience, because I do not believe that that would satisfy the test. I would prefer it if we nailed that issue down at stage 3 so that it is clear in the bill, because at the moment it is, as far as I can see, silent on the matter.

It is important that we future proof this legislation. I presume that, if we improve electronic connection, this approach might be used a bit more, and we have to be clear about when it can be used in the interests of justice.

I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about public officials and the giving of virtual evidence as a vital component of their work. However, I was surprised by the evidence from the police with regard to their concerns about it, for reasons that I think are, once again, related to connection.

I did not comment on Liam Kerr’s amendments at the time, but on his amendment 41, I am not clear about why that provision should apply in all circumstances. I can see why, in some circumstances, you might not publish the location. The location could be checked, for reasons that we have already discussed. In any case, I am not too clear about that; after all, if you give evidence in court, you are giving evidence in a known location with a known address.

I do support what was said about Liam Kerr’s amendment 43. If there is to be a report, it has to be about more than just gathering data. There are some reservations about whether virtual attendance is all that it is said to be, and I hope that the Government will consider what might be done to give us the kind of report that will mean something, given that this is a substantive—indeed, permanent—change. We did what we needed to do during the pandemic, but the fact that we did something then as a necessity to get through trials should not be an argument for continuing to do it now.

I hope that, before we close the door on this at stage 3, the Government will give more thought to it. That said, I will not be pressing amendment 34.

That was a helpful exchange. I just want to put on record that I hope that my intention here is not misunderstood—I support the use of virtual attendance, and the cabinet secretary has clarified that, whatever the location, the proceedings will be delivered with solemnity et cetera, which is important. I do not think that the committee should settle for anything less; if this is going to be a permanent feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, we have to ensure that it is done to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we all recognise that it can reduce delays and make things easier for victims.

I should say that it was not me who brought up the issue of locations; the Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association raised concerns about people giving evidence from home, and it was mentioned by another witness, too. That is why I addressed it. I share their concerns, although I think that there is a distinction to be drawn here, and the cabinet secretary makes an important point when she says that someone could have a specific reason for giving evidence from home. I think that that would be okay, but I am not in favour of people giving evidence from home for the sake of convenience, because I do not believe that that would satisfy the test. I would prefer us to nail that issue down at stage 3 so that it is clear, because as far as I can see, at the moment, the bill is silent on the matter.

It is important that we future proof the bill. I presume that, if connection speeds improve, this approach might be used a bit more, and we have to be clear about when it can be used in the interests of justice.

I accept what the cabinet secretary has said about public officials and the ability to give evidence virtually being a vital component of their work. However, I was surprised to hear her comment in relation to police evidence, given that the police have concerns about giving evidence virtually, for reasons related to the reliability of the connections.

I did not comment on Liam Kerr’s amendments at the time, and I do not want to speak for him, but on his amendment 41, I am not clear why that provision would be needed in all circumstances. I can see why, in some circumstances, you might not publish the location. However, the location could be checked, for reasons that we have already discussed. I am not too clear about that; after all, if someone gives evidence in court, they are giving evidence in a known location with a known address.

I support what was said about Liam Kerr’s amendment 43. If there is to be a report, it has to be about more than just gathering data. There are some reservations about whether virtual attendance is all that it is said to be, and I hope that the Government will consider what might be done to give us the kind of report that will mean something, given that this is a substantive—indeed, permanent—change. We did what we needed to do during the pandemic, but the fact that we did something then as a necessity to get through trials should not be an argument for continuing to do it now.

I hope that, before we close the door on this at stage 3, the Government will give more thought to it. That said, I will not be pressing amendment 34.

Amendment 47 would ensure that any change to, or increase in, the use of digital productions in court will not have an impact on the current arrangements for the storage of physical evidence. Amendment 48 would ensure that the physical evidence of the case cannot be destroyed while the case against the accused is on-going, right up until appeal or review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

I thank the convener for allowing amendment 93 as a manuscript amendment; it is one of the amendments that got lost in the midst of all the emails. The amendment would ensure that, before a trial begins, either the prosecution or the defence can request to view the physical item, and they can request that it is produced in court. That is similar to the amendments from the cabinet secretary and Liam Kerr.

It is important that we establish the principle of what the modernisation of this part of the system does. Where does it benefit the court administration and the interests of justice?

With regard to the production of physical evidence, there are a lot of cases in which one would think that it does not matter whether the evidence is produced digitally, but, in some cases, it does. For example, in a murder case in which a weapon is used, I would have thought that it is really important that the jury sees that.

I turn to the cabinet secretary’s amendment 5. Although I think that it is helpful, it seems not to be founded on the principle that it must be in the interests of justice for either party, whether it is the Crown or the defence, to be able to say, even if they have missed the deadline, that they wish the evidence to be produced in court. I am not comfortable with there being a deadline, so that we say, “If you’ve missed the 28 days, you cannot have that produced in court”. There is a best-evidence rule—that is the principle in our system; we need the best-quality evidence. I am concerned, therefore, that the bill might throw away important principles.

Generally speaking, I am interested in the status quo. I confess that I am not au fait with all the principles of the status quo around the retention of evidence, but I note that there will be benefits to the smooth running of the court system. It is important to separate the issues of retention of evidence—how long it is kept for and what form it is kept in—and the production of evidence. We are dealing with two different things there.

If there was a digital image of a bag of heroin, and you were confident that everybody knew what that looked like, you would not worry too much. However, you might not be confident about that, and it is important to ensure that there is the full ability for that evidence to be produced in court.

Good morning. I thank the cabinet secretary and all her officials for their helpful exchanges, which helped me to understand some of the technicalities in the bill. Some of my amendments were drafted before we had our most recent conversation, so I ask people to bear that in mind.

I wish to probe some important issues relating to how the provisions on virtual attendance at our courts would be used. I am fully supportive of the principle of virtual attendance being a permanent feature of our courts, because that is important for the proper functioning of courts and, as Crown Office officials said in their very good evidence to the committee, it is important for victims who would not otherwise come to court. Excellent framework legislation on vulnerable witnesses has been introduced in successive parliamentary sessions, so the provisions do not stand alone.

Amendments 33, 35 to 37, 39 and 40 would give the Lord Justice General the power to issue a determination to change the default mode of attendance to virtual attendance in certain circumstances, but not for certain types of cases. I confess that, on reading the bill, some things were not clear to me. I think that, depending on the case and the type of trial or proceeding, virtual attendance would be for individuals. I note that the Lord Justice General has exercised the power quite sparingly, but, if we grant an extensive power, it could be used much more regularly.

The default mode of attendance being virtual already applies to certain types of hearings, including preliminary hearings, some sentencing hearings, full committal hearings and bail appeal hearings. I have no particular concerns about any of that, because those hearings are administrative in some senses and do not really involve witnesses, although the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association has raised concerns in relation to custody appearances. I want to be clear that the Lord Justice General, who has used the current powers in relation to those hearings, could not say that a category of trials, for example, should be virtual. I do not think that that is the case—the cabinet secretary is already shaking her head—but I want to be sure about where the powers stop and start.

Amendment 38 prescribes that, if virtual attendance is to be agreed, it must have the approval of both parties—the accused and the complainer. That is probably already accounted for. The cabinet secretary will probably say that the test is whether it is in the interests of justice for that to happen. That is fair enough, but I hope that she will appreciate that I am testing where the line is drawn for hearings that already have virtual attendance.

In its report, the committee highlighted an issue to do with

“the criteria which should be used by the Lord Justice General in making a determination in favour of virtual attendance in particular categories of case. The Bill does not elaborate on what the criteria should be, beyond that it should not prejudice the fairness of proceedings or be contrary to the interests of justice.”

The committee’s view is that there should be

“additional criteria which the Lord Justice General must take into account before making a determination.”

It is simply a case of taking a belt-and-braces approach in that regard.

During the committee’s evidence sessions, Sharon Dowey asked about the case for virtual appearances in custody cases. Paul Smith and Simon Brown had concerns about ensuring proper co-ordination with the person they were representing if there was virtual attendance. They also raised concerns about the issue of the quality of the connection, which I share. I will not go through those again, but I have seen that issue for myself.

I would have thought that, if we are going to rely much more on virtual attendance in courts, it would be a prerequisite to ensure that we are clear about where that approach can be used, and that the connection should be as good as it can be. In particular, we should ensure that virtual attendance does not detract from the current arrangements, especially—as Paul Smith said in his evidence—where an accused person has never been through the court process before. It would not be fair to prejudice their interests. It is important that we are clear that those aspects are all brought together in a satisfactory way.

I move amendment 33.

Thank you for that clarity. I was not aware that legislation on the matter existed prior to the pandemic, so it is useful to know that. That is fair enough.

However, I still say that, given that the bill’s purpose is to modernise—to make those things permanent—you must envisage greater use being made of that power. However, the bill is silent on when it can be used. What we are here to do when we legislate is to correct anything that might not have been right in the first place. That might just involve being satisfied that the requirements for the conditions under which this approach would be allowed are clear to the Parliament before we put it in the legislation as a way of modernising the court system and making that better.

Amendment 34, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 35 to 42 not moved.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

Amendment 43 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Digital productions

I want to check that I understand what you have said. National jurisdiction could apply up to full committal. That means that some hearings, such as procedural and preliminary hearings, could be held under national jurisdiction. Did you say that you expect national jurisdiction to be used mainly for custody appearances, or do you expect it to be used in other circumstances? The big problem is that, if hearings can be heard anywhere in Scotland prior to full committal, that might involve lawyers running up and down the country. Did you say that you expect the custody hearing—the first appearance—to be held under national jurisdiction?