Chamber and committees

That is fair enough.

Stuart Houston, I think that you said that you have difficulty recruiting people to fight cybercrime. Is that correct?

Over the past two hours, it has become apparent—as I think that Ben Macpherson was suggesting—that this is a much bigger area of criminal law and social concern than we realised at the beginning of the evidence session. I am clear about that.

Chris Ulliott, should the Government legislate to outlaw the payment of ransoms?

Should we have more regulation around whether or not to pay ransoms, given what has been said about where the money might be going?

ACC Stuart Houston, in your submission, you said that there has been a rise in cybercrime and

“physical harm with online groups exploiting vulnerable individuals online to self-harm and share the content.”

Will you say anything more about the profile of those people? Is it mainly children and young adults? Is it mainly girls? Do you have any information on the gender split for sextortion? Any of that information would be useful.

Are you sceptical about that?

I am not trivialising it. I am just saying that there are reports in which people say that that is what they think happened.

Amendment 77 would insert a duty to provide information to complainers in sexual offence cases. It states that the

“Advocate Depute must ... meet with the complainer”

before

“the first hearing”

and

“provide the complainer with relevant information on the progress of the case over the course of proceedings.”

Tony Lenehan KC said:

“It is important that I am allowed to say to them beforehand that the trial can be conducted as slowly as they need it to be, that they can think about the questions and, if they do not understand the questions, that they can tell me that. We can build that into the process so that, when they come into the court, they know me a bit.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 January 2024; c 43.]

He has also highlighted that a current practice note indicates that the advocate depute should meet the complainer in advance of their giving evidence when evidence is taken by commission.

My amendment falls within the broad scope of issues that are raised in relation to independent legal representation and a single point of contact. The overwhelming experience of the vast majority of victims from whom we have heard was that they felt that they had no agency in their own case. In many cases, nothing was explained to them and they felt that they had no stake in what was happening in the case in which they were the victim. It is clear to me that we cannot go back to what we had before.

The Lord Advocate is to be commended for the way that she has, from what we have seen, promoted among advocate deputes the necessity of seeing victims. We have heard from at least one victim who expressed on the record that her experience was completely different from the experiences of all the other victims from whom we heard in that evidence session, who did not feel, in any way, that they had a part in the whole process.

The important thing is that the advocate who is dealing with the case will have read the papers and will have some understanding of the intricacies of how the trial might be expected to go. It is a really important aspect of making a difference to complainers.

I imagine that Governments are never happy to put this type of thing into statute, so I will listen to find out whether there is another way to do that. You will note that Tony Lenehan said that it is already covered in a practice note. However, I want to ensure that the right for a complainer to sit down with a person who is, after all, going to be prosecuting their case, is made permanent and does not slip when a new Lord Advocate comes into post.

I see that Liam Kerr is about to intervene, so I will take his intervention.

A number of these amendments seek to amend elements of the sexual offences court, including what it will be able to do and what crimes it will be able to deal with.

On amendment 157, my intention and how things have come out might be two entirely different things, as is often the case, but my intention was to ensure that the crime of rape would be presided over only by a High Court judge. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary might say that that is what she would expect, but it is really important, when we are legislating, to nail down the detail on the expectations under the law. I would not be happy if the door were to be left open to any discretion whatever.

Amendment 69 seeks to leave out murder as a crime that could be tried in the sexual offences court. The senators of the College of Justice have said that murder should be tried only in the High Court and that “the anecdotal nature” of paragraph 280 of the policy memorandum

“gives no confidence that this ... constitutional change has been thought through properly.”

Paragraph 280 in the policy memorandum states:

“There are known cases in which sexual abuse perpetrated by an accused is alleged to have escalated over time, against multiple complainers, ultimately leading to a murder. Given the experience of the surviving complainers and the nature of their evidence ... the policy objective is to afford those complainers the benefits of the case being prosecuted in the Sexual Offences Court.”

On that, the senators stated:

“While this is undoubtedly true, there are not many such cases and the anecdotal nature of para 280 gives no confidence that this major constitutional change has been thought through properly. The appropriate place for charges of murder and attempted murder is the High Court. Murder is the most serious charge in the criminal canon. It is that charge which should determine the forum. The suggested change ignores the fact that in the very few cases where sexual offences are alleged against a surviving complainer, it is likely that the case will be tried before a judge who is also a judge of the sexual offences court and that most if not all of the benefits of that court will be able to be afforded to such a complainer.”

They continued:

“We remain firmly of the view that life imprisonment and OLRs”—

that is, orders for lifelong restriction—

“should be the exclusive province of the High Court.”

It would be a mistake if, in trying to sort out the status and importance of the sexual offences court, we in any way diluted the importance of the High Court of Justiciary, which will still be the highest court. I am happy to be contradicted on that, but I would challenge such a view. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the High Court of Justiciary will remain the highest court. It is a requirement of the Scotland Act 1998, and its integrity should be protected.

I move amendment 157.

It is clearly a difference of opinion about how to achieve the same end. I feel as though I am arguing something that was part of last week’s debate—what I am trying to get at in this group of amendments is that the High Court’s integrity should be protected. This is not just about creating something new—and, by the way, I am absolutely sure that, if there were a new division, there would be a fundamental change. If a new division were to be created in the High Court or the sheriff court for sexual offences, the situation would be different. In the same way, we created the drugs court and now the practice is different. It operates differently.

Convener, I apologise for taking up too much time. I need to make sure that my arguments are understood, albeit that people may disagree with them.