Chamber and committees

Good morning. Dr Forbes explained that very well, so I understand the dilemma. There might be some public awareness-raising around a new offence, but you want to get prosecutions and make sure that, if you prosecute, you get convictions, so the content of the law is really important.

We have read in our papers that section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 in England and Wales amended section 75A of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to set out a specific offence. It includes a defence for consensual strangulation and states:

“It is a defence ... for A to show that B consented to the strangulation or other act.”

Obviously, that section also has a caveat about recklessness.

Dr Forbes, if consent is not a defence to assault, as was recently confirmed in the case of Kirkup v His Majesty’s Advocate—and, previously, in the case of Smart v HMA—does that seem odd to you, or would it not really work like that in Scotland? If we were to legislate in the same way, what would that mean for the issue of consent?

Yes.

Thank you. I will explore that issue further. Any anecdotal evidence would suggest that it is not even specific to men or women, but I have not seen the data for that. I agree with Fiona Drouet that a deeper issue is the impact of pornography, but I am not certain that it is gender specific; I just do not know. Even though women are agreeing to it, we do not know why they think that it is okay. I am clear that public awareness is really important, and I thank you for the work that you have done on it.

I turn to the question of legislation, which Liam Kerr also asked about. It seems to me, from a cursory look at the English legislation, that it is flawed. If there is a defence of consent, one can see that the cases will fall. I would have thought that it would be more important, initially, to do a lot of high-profile campaigning around the idea that, whether or not someone consents, harm is caused. Putting to one side whether you think that strangulation should be a stand-alone offence, it is currently against the law, but clearly many people do not think that it already is.

I see flaws in the English legislation, and I wonder if you agree. If we were going to create a new offence, before we made any decisions about passing a law, we would have to deal with people who think that it is currently lawful to do it. Anything that you want to say in response is fine.

Would that be done by the National Crime Agency or by Police Scotland?

Are you able to recruit people with those skills directly, if you decide that they are needed?

I have a couple of questions. One is on the ransomware issue, and the other is on the evidence that ACC Stuart Houston has provided to the committee on exploitation, physical harm and so on.

I do not know whether this question is for Miles Bonfield—you can decide between you—but I am interested in the recent attacks on M&S. David Keenan quite rightly outlined the investment that is needed by companies, but, in the case of M&S, it was reported to be a simple breach. Somebody phoned up the IT help desk, as we are all used to doing, and that was a simple way in.

It is really helpful to have that understanding. With the proper investment that is being talked about and with warnings and police resource, how easily could we shut down the scope for ransomware incidents?

Okay. Let us see what the full facts are.

With regard to ransomware, there is information out there about groups such as scattered spider. Who are these people? Do we know much about them? Are they highly trained individuals? What is attracting them to crime? It might be important to get behind that.

I am glad that the subject has come up. There is a crossover between our role and the role of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in relation to secure accommodation.

From our perspective, it is important to keep an eye on the matter to make sure that, in meeting the commitment that no young person under the age of 18 will be in custody but will instead be in secure accommodation, that does not give unfair disadvantage to the young people who are in secure accommodation on other grounds and that there is sufficient accommodation.

A rumour was circulating—although it was not confirmed—that a case was in court about a week ago for which secure accommodation was not available. That has not been confirmed. However, at the time of a statement on the issue, I asked the minister whether she was satisfied that there will be enough accommodation.

When it comes to court matters, the sheriff has no cause to ask whether accommodation is available; they can ask only whether the person will be detained. Previously, the sheriff would have asked about that and, if secure accommodation had not been available, some other arrangement would have been found. That is why people such as William Lindsay Brown ended up in Polmont prison. It is vital for the Criminal Justice Committee to monitor that area as the policy is embedded.

Given what we have just heard, including about the international aspect of cybercrime, fighting crime that is perpetrated by people who are clearly very skilled and intelligent may be a very attractive career to somebody who sees that they could use their skills to go after those people. Do you agree that a bit more discussion and public promotion of the need to resource this area might attract the people whom you need?