���˿���

Right. I am happy. That is what I needed to hear.

My question is about national jurisdiction, which we have not yet covered. I will do my best to be brief.

Through my line of questioning last week, I established that the national jurisdiction question is quite separate from that of virtual custody. Initially, I thought that that would make sense if we are aiming to deal with custody courts. However, on my second reading of the explanatory notes I thought that there was a bit more to that aspect.

Section 7 of the bill, which would insert new section 5B into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, says that the Lord Advocate will decide the jurisdiction, which is quite different from the established legal principles in Scotland, and that sheriffs can sit in any sheriffdom. I would like you to help me with subsections (6) and (7) of proposed new section 5B, which seem to me to go further than the current rules. I will read out the explanatory notes on those subsections. Subsection (6) allows the continuing jurisdiction to go on

“until the conclusion of proceedings”,

unless they

“come to an early end”.

On petition cases, which I am particularly interested in, the notes say:

“Subsection (7) means that a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it ... In practice, because jurisdiction under subsection (5) ends with an accused being fully committed for trial”.

I presume that the Crown Office had input into the drafting of those provisions. I am trying to understand why you would want to go further than the current rules, because that would seem to involve a lot of additional change. Sheriffs can already sit in any sheriffdom. Unless it could be challenged, the Lord Advocate would decide on jurisdiction anywhere in Scotland, but those rules will go beyond the custody courts.

At last week’s meeting I put that question to the witness from the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association because, in all honesty, I was struggling to understand the provisions. He confirmed that the association has a bit of a concern about them, too. Could you possibly speak to those provisions?

We are not given much indication of where evidence could be given from. Let us imagine a murder trial, in which a lot is at stake and a witness’s evidence could be crucial to the defence. In what conditions should a witness give such evidence? Would that be done in a designated space or could it be done in any old place?

I know: I have seen that.

Can I stop you? I know all that, but I am asking about something else. If the Lord Justice General, using the powers in the bill—because permission has to be granted—tells someone that they can give trial evidence remotely, is there a requirement for them to use those facilities? Do you see where I am coming from? Could someone say, “We’re not going to use those facilities,” and use others instead? People would have to take the oath and so on.

I now want to ask questions about the other power that the Lord Justice General can exercise, which covers whether other people can appear virtually. Just so that I have got this right, Malcolm, is it the case that the Lord Justice General will decide on that question for each individual court hearing, and it is not a blanket power?

I would like to get an answer, if that is all right. I need to be satisfied. I have seen the facilities and they are really impressive. Will you expect every witness who has been granted permission to give evidence virtually to use those facilities to give evidence? Do you see what I am saying? Is that a yes?

That makes sense. I am interested to hear which test will be applied to other witnesses at trials. I am sure that we all agree that, at the end of the day—and quite apart from all the technology that is involved—what matters is that there is fairness in criminal justice. I cannot find anything that tells me which criteria would be applied in the Lord Justice General’s decision making on an individual trial. Will guidance be issued on those?

That is fair enough. We will need to go back to them, then.

I was quite concerned about some of the evidence that was given to the committee last week. I can understand why people would want to give their evidence in the comfort of their own home, but there must be some limitations on all this modernisation. I do not see how you can control the environment if you extend the circumstances in which virtual proceedings are allowed.

Can you help me with that? As far as you are concerned, what requirements must be met for a witness to give their evidence virtually? Must it be given in a particular setting that you have prescribed? Should there be no one else in the room, as Sharon Dowey suggested? As far as I can see, the only way in which you could monitor that would be if the evidence had to be given in designated places. I would like to hear your view on that.

If that aspect has not been fully thought through, what needs to happen to make the arrangements robust?