���˿���

I just want to put on record two things with regard to what Ms McNeill has said about people giving evidence at home—forgive me if I am repeating myself, convener. I appreciate that she was articulating evidence that was given by others, but, according to our justice partners, giving evidence from home is not the norm. Indeed, it has been described to me as vanishingly rare. Where legislation on that already exists, it existed prior to the bill and, indeed, prior to the Covid legislation. To summarise, the existing legislation says that it remains under the control of the court whether evidence can be given at home. I am happy to write to the committee to lay that out further.

The point that I was trying to make about Mr Kerr’s amendment 43—which I think resonates with the point that Ms McNeill made—is not that I would close the door on it but that I want reporting conditions that are more meaningful and more rounded. The report should give us information that means something when it comes to scrutiny but also when it comes to delivering greater efficiency and effectiveness. Having data is important, but that is a broader aim. I think that, sometimes, we go on a quest to gather more and more data, as opposed to looking at how existing data can be better joined up and how different data can speak to each other.

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.

If someone is recalled from HDC, that would have to be proportionate in relation to the breach of licence. The decision would be framed by whether someone has breached their licence and the circumstances around that. Although optimising the use of home detention curfew assists with the management of a very large prison population, it is also a reintegration tool. It is certainly not a silver bullet for our large prison population. I reassure Mr Kerr that the operational decisions that the SPS makes are based on an assessment of risk, its partnership work with communities and the information that it has about whether someone has breached their licence or not. Those are the things that determine when a decision has to be made about whether someone is recalled. If it is helpful, I could ask the Prison Service to provide more information to the committee on that point.

Bearing in mind the scope of the work that I described, I think that that is a possibility. However, I want some of that work to come to fruition before I make a commitment now—in June—in relation to proceedings that are still a few months away. I have sought to demonstrate to Ms Chapman and other members that extensive work is on-going in this area.

I will say more about the timelines. The research on integrated domestic abuse courts is being undertaken now. The project initiation document has been finalised, and our intention is to complete and publish the research in early 2026. As I have said, the policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council on court rules will be ready by the beginning of September, prior to or as we embark on stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. Obviously, it is not for me to place timescales on the Scottish Civil Justice Council.

As I have said, I am seeking advice on regulations under section 102 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 with a view to giving powers to the civil courts to make orders in relation to a person who has behaved in a vexatious manner. I will be writing to the Lord President—as I said, I have to consult him—later this month.