Chamber and committees

Good morning, Ms Gribbon. I am interested in your point about the necessity for independence in the complaints handling process. I understand that there are three areas in which complaints may be given some consideration. The first relates to the general HR relationships of a police officer who is serving with the organisation; the second is the professional standards department; and the third is potentially the PIRC. Is the committee to conclude that, from your experience and case load, you think that, under the current arrangements, procedurally and culturally, none of those three elements is working effectively to protect the public interest when it comes to complaints about police officers’ conduct?

That is a very significant statement that you have just put on the record, which sharply focuses your evidence. Thank you for that.

The bill includes a provision that will apply the duty of candour to police officers in relation to their actions, but, listening to you, it strikes me that we need to consider carefully whether the obligations that we say to the Government should be in the bill should be applied to the process of complaints handling within the police service. In your powerful opening statement, you have recounted to us that things that we would all consider to be absolutely essential—fundamentally, truth and integrity—are not always present in the system, as you have experienced it as a serving police officer.

Is it your point that the bill that we have in front of us does not get close to affecting a real source of difficulty, which is the effectiveness of the professional standards system in Police Scotland? Is that a fair summary of your position, Ms Gribbon?

Good morning, Mr Clarke. I have a technical question. Can you explain what CAAPD is?

Thank you for that. I recall that reference now.

You bring a perspective to the discussion that is very different from what we have heard from other witnesses so far, and it is a really important perspective. However, it illustrates that the system basically does not seem to be satisfactory from anyone’s perspective. Is that a fair reflection of the evidence that you have given to us in the context of the other evidence that we have heard?

If a complaint is made against a police officer, there will be a desire on the part of that police officer to have the matter resolved openly, properly and timeously, but, in your experience, that has not been the case. Is that correct?

Thank you very much.

I have followed a lot of Willie Rennie’s argument and I understand where he is coming from. However, I will establish the link with his comments about Somerset Council. A lot of the reforms require changes of attitudes, as well as the money being in place. It is right to press on resources, but it is also right for Parliament to press about changes in attitudes within public authorities to undertake the reforms—such as those that happened in Somerset, which the member correctly cited—that require to be undertaken to deliver the Promise in its entirety.

The example that Mr Rennie cited of Somerset Council is a good example of the willingness of public authorities to contemplate that their existing provision and approach are just not good enough. That is the thinking that underpins the Promise. The challenge with which we all wrestle—I know that ministers wrestle with this just now—is that that thinking and willingness to confront the unacceptability of current provision is not always prevalent in public authorities. Perhaps the bill and the comments that Mr Rennie has put on the record will help that process.

The purpose of the bill is to address some of the long-standing concerns raised by victims and witnesses surrounding their experiences in the criminal justice system and to act to improve the outcomes for those who are the victims of sexual crime. I do not doubt that every member of the Scottish Parliament wishes to see the purpose of the bill succeed, although I also recognise that members will have different views on how best to achieve that purpose.

One of the problems with which we wrestle as a Parliament is that, in our current discourse, we often exaggerate the scale and nature of those differences of opinion. The Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report is a very good example of how to openly air differences of opinion and try to find a way to reconcile those differences in a coherent and respectful fashion.

I welcome the fact that all members of the committee supported the general principles of the bill, with some important caveats that the Scottish Government must consider should the bill proceed beyond stage 1. That is surely the correct way to proceed. We all want to see action to improve outcomes in the criminal justice system for victims of sexual violence, but we need to focus on how to get that right at stages 2 and 3.

I also welcome the tone and substance of the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs is demonstrating a clear willingness to listen to different views, and she should be commended for doing so on such a difficult set of issues.

There is much to welcome in the bill and to merit our support. The provision to mandate trauma-informed practice in all the work of the criminal justice system is a welcome step to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. If that was all very straightforward, surely that would be happening now, but the fact that it is not means that we need to legislate to make sure that it happens.

The proposal to establish a sexual offences court will create the opportunity to ensure that sexual crimes are tried in a more appropriate environment that will embed trauma-informed practice and that has been specifically established to improve handling in such cases.

I accept the argument that a new court is required to ensure that that can be done, because I do not believe that the adaptation of existing structures—which the legal profession has argued for and could happen today if there was the impetus for it, but that has not happened—will provide the appropriate environment in which that objective can be achieved.

The most controversial aspect of the bill is the concept of the juryless trial pilot. Given the opportunity to conduct trials without the performative approach to jury persuasion, the concern about the existence of rape myths and the requirement for written judgments to be delivered, I believe that the trial would be a valuable intervention to explore how best to try such cases. I recognise that, in the Scottish Government’s response to the committee, the cabinet secretary said that she is willing to consider measures that might address concerns about the proposal. The approach that she has taken is welcome.