���˿���

As you would expect, our contact with the court service is on-going, particularly in relation to our understanding in more detail the sorts of operational aspects that politicians and civil servants are not involved with daily.

On the information that is provided to witnesses, I remind members that the bill already provides that, when a witness gives evidence remotely, a direction will set out how the witness will attend and will provide for the witness to use electronic means to enable them to be seen and heard by all parties, including the judge and, where applicable, the jury. Information is also sent out about how to join the platform, which is Webex. The guidance looks quite clear to me, although I am not the most electronically able person.

We can ensure that the committee receives a copy of the guidance that is sent to people on the witness protocol, if that would be helpful. Before they sign into Webex, there are certain things that witnesses must make sure of. I will not read it all out, unless the convener wants me to, but I will send a copy of the guidance to members, if that will be helpful.

What I said is that amendments 8 and 10 make it clear that the default will be for national jurisdiction to end following initial custody hearings. National jurisdiction will continue until the conclusion of a case only in very specific circumstances. The amendments recognise that, in solemn proceedings, not all accused people will be fully committed. Full committal is not a compulsory step if, for example, the accused has been bailed.

Amendment 8 sets out the changes for sheriff court proceedings, both summary and solemn, and amendment 10 replicates the changes for proceedings in the justice of the peace court.

Amendments 9 and 11 respond to concerns that Katy Clark raised with me about how national jurisdiction applies to an accused who appears following an earlier failure to appear in principal proceedings and who is due to be sentenced in respect of those principal proceedings. My amendments provide that, in those circumstances, the national jurisdiction court can pass a sentence or otherwise dispose of the principal proceedings only when there has not been an evidence-led trial or, if there has been an evidence-led trial, only in circumstances in which it is considered to be in the interests of justice to do so. An example of that might include circumstances in which the accused changed their plea to guilty early on in the trial, with the result that very limited evidence was heard.

Amendment 9 covers proceedings in the sheriff courts and amendment 11 covers those in the justice of the peace courts.

Although I have lodged amendments that clarify the end point for national jurisdiction, as well as adding some limitations to sentencing under national jurisdiction, justice partners have warned of the risks of introducing additional complexity by making disproportionate changes to a system that is well understood by justice partners and practitioners.

I ask members to support my amendments, which respond to the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 and provide clarity on the end point of national jurisdiction, while preserving the progress that has been made in making better use of resources, as well as protecting the rights of the accused.

Family is an integral part of the review model; therefore, I very much appreciate Ms Dowey’s rationale in lodging amendments 77 and 92. However, in their current form, the amendments are problematic for a number of reasons.

First, the next of kin in the context of domestic homicide or suicide is often the perpetrator. Although the amendments would allow the review oversight committee to select which particular family member was contacted—I appreciate that partners and ex-partners are not on the list in amendment 77—that list is not exhaustive. In cases where the only family member was the perpetrator, the committee would be obliged to notify them, or if no other family members could be located, there would still be a statutory duty to notify, which the oversight committee would be unable to fulfil.

A further risk in the oversight committee attempting to fulfil its duties would be when the committee contacted a family member who was not appropriate. I have said that it is my intention to include in the review model so-called honour killings, once the necessary work to define what that means in Scotland has concluded, both from a policy and a legal perspective. As I said earlier, in such cases, there are often multiple perpetrators of honour abuse in the family, extended family and community. Therefore, when there is a duty to notify in such cases, it might not be clear who the appropriate person to notify is.

Although it is not currently required by the bill, it was always expected that the review oversight committee would take all reasonable steps to contact relevant persons to make them aware that a review would be undertaken. The intention is to set out further detail in the statutory guidance, using the existing power in the bill, to ensure that that happens. That would provide more flexibility to take a considered approach to the circumstances of the case and to determine who, if anyone, is to be notified.

I hope that those comments about the use of guidance are sufficient to reassure Ms Dowey that nothing more is needed on that front. However, if she remains concerned, I would be happy to discuss the matter with her further and, if appropriate, work with her to bring back an amendment at stage 3 that would achieve the aspiration of the current amendments, while ensuring that it is sufficiently flexible to adapt to the wide-ranging considerations that all need to be taken into account in relation to family and next of kin in the context of domestic abuse, homicide and suicide reviews. On that basis, I ask Ms Dowey not to press amendment 77 and not to move her other amendment.

Amendments 22 to 26 in my name relate to an operational matter with regard to domestic homicide and suicide reviews. As introduced, the bill makes provision for the Lord Advocate to be able to order

“the suspension of consideration of a death ... or of a domestic homicide or suicide review, for such period as appears to the Lord Advocate to be necessary to allow for

(a) the completion of any other investigation, or

(b) the determination of any criminal proceedings”

or a fatal accident inquiry. There is a similar power for the Lord Advocate to be able to discontinue the review altogether.

The amendments extend the powers of the Lord Advocate to cover

“an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 for which the Scottish ministers are solely responsible”,

which will ensure that, when a public inquiry is examining a death, perhaps as an alternative to a fatal accident inquiry, the Lord Advocate’s powers can also be used in relation to such an inquiry in the same way as they could be used in relation to an FAI.

Prior to the introduction of the bill, we sought the views of the United Kingdom Government on whether similar provision was necessary in relation to public inquiries that it has established. The UK Government stated that such instances would be rare, and it does not consider that, in such instances, a domestic homicide or suicide review in Scotland would need to pause or stop. Therefore, my amendment expands the provision in respect of Scottish inquiries only.

The bill also makes provision in section 19 for a protocol to be developed and agreed between the Scottish ministers, the chair of the review oversight committee, the Lord Advocate and the chief constable, on how those new reviews will interact with other proceedings. Together, those protections are to avoid prejudice to criminal investigations, proceedings or an FAI. Amendment 26 will now expand the protocol to include public inquiries for which the Scottish ministers are solely responsible, as a consequence of section 18 being expanded by amendments 22 to 25.

I move amendment 22.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 81 not moved.

Amendment 23 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19—Protocol in relation to interaction with criminal investigations etc

Amendment 83 not moved.

Amendment 26 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20—Duty on public authorities to co-operate

Amendments 84 and 85 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

Section 22—Reports on case reviews

Amendment 86 not moved.

For the record, I assure Mr Kerr that we are still incarcerating people for shoplifting offences. Of course, people will have their own views on whether that is a positive or a negative thing.

With regard to research, home detention curfew has been with us for a long time—for decades now—and it is rooted in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. As a concept for the justice agencies to work with and assess, therefore, it is well established. It runs in parallel with the victim notification scheme, in which I know the committee has taken a great interest; there are improvements to that scheme in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.

On whether there has been any research on the specific change, the answer is no, but the change is being made to align ourselves with the position that we took before changes were made to the short-term prisoner automatic release scheme. Before the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Parliament at the end of last year, on any given day, we had around 150 people on home detention curfew. Because of those changes, and particularly the changes to the transition period, in which people were released in three tranches, the numbers reduced to between 70 and 80, but they have slowly increased since then.

Essentially, the order is a realignment to optimise HDC so that it is at the level that it was prior to the changes to the point of automatic early release for some short-term prisoners.

Amendment 7 will allow the time, date and location, as displayed on the footage captured by a body-worn video camera issued by Police Scotland, to be treated as sufficient evidence of those matters without police officers or staff needing to attend court to give evidence on them. There are safeguards in place for the accused, who will be able to object, within seven days, to the recording being treated in such a manner if they believe that the footage does not, in fact, accurately display the time, date or location of the events recorded.

Amendment 7 will put in place an evidential rule that allows for some non-controversial aspects of body-worn video evidence to be accepted by the court. That will reduce the need to routinely cite police officers to speak to those aspects, and it will benefit victims and witnesses by allowing cases to be brought to court sooner. That is in line with the current practice and legislation for fixed camera video footage, such as that taken on closed-circuit television, which is contained in section 283 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

Amendment 7 provides that the Scottish ministers may, by regulations, enable other organisations such as the British Transport Police and the Scottish Prison Service to be added in the future to allow recordings from their body-worn cameras to be covered by the provision. That will ensure that primary legislation will not be necessary in order for other organisations to benefit from the bill.

I move amendment 7.

No.

We are aiming for April next year.

My officials can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that sets out the procedures for financial penalties and the level of payment. The maximum level for a restitution order is £10,000, as is the maximum level for a fine. That is an established procedure for the courts.

It is also my understanding that the courts have the option of imposing a fine, a restitution order or another penalty and, if they wish, they can use a combination of penalties. I do not have the figures in front of me, but courts sometimes impose fines plus compensation orders. I do not know how common that is, but it is my understanding that the courts can use a combination of disposals.