成人快手

Skip to main content

Language: English /

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 2 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1190 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

According to the explanatory notes, the Lord Advocate will decide the sheriffdom. Is that not quite a big departure from the principles of jurisdiction under which we currently operate?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

That makes sense. Does the bill extend the Lord Advocate鈥檚 discretion to go beyond that?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

To be fair, you will see that we are all still using paper here. There is a certain insurance policy in our having paper in front of us.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

I do not want to get into any more complexity here but, based on what you have said, Paul Smith, would it make sense for the committee to separate out the issues in relation to virtual attendance from the issue of national jurisdiction? You are marrying the issues up in what you have said about the only way in which a national jurisdiction could work. However, given what you have said, it would make sense for the committee to scrutinise the full extent of the powers that are being asked for under the national jurisdiction provisions and to look separately at the rules around virtual attendance. Would that be your view?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

I take your point. However, there is still a test, which is not applied automatically.

I think that you have answered my question, and I hear your position on choice. However, the bill does not give people that choice; it simply says that virtual attendance can happen when that is in the interests of justice.

You are answering yes to my question, in that the facilities that you are developing will give reassurance to the court system. It is still important that witnesses give evidence in certain conditions. Even if the bill is passed without amendment, it would perhaps meet the test that the court will have to apply, which is that giving evidence remotely can be done if that is in the interests of justice.

Adam, did you want to respond?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

Yes, but the bill does not say that. I have been ploughing through the explanatory notes and I am more confused than ever. I cannot see where the bill sets that out. The bill treats them as though they are separate provisions. I want to ask about national jurisdiction in a bit more detail, but am I right in saying that?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

I am thinking that there is good reason both for national jurisdiction, if it was qualified, and for virtual attendances, if the provision was refined to reflect some of your concerns. Would it be fair to say that?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

Again, I will reflect on some of the issues. It is quite clear to me that, under the bill, the Lord Advocate would have complete discretion to decide sheriffdom. If the bill is passed, those powers will be in place.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

I come back to the answer to Katy Clark鈥檚 question on the practice note. As you know, when we revised the time limits on solemn cases in law鈥擨 will need to be reminded what year that would have been, but I think that it was 2004 or 2005鈥攚e changed the test to make it on cause shown.

In good faith, the Parliament did not think that there would be much change, but, as I am sure that you would agree, there was significant change. In the context of the bill鈥檚 national jurisdiction provisions, is it fair to say that, if we dealt with those concerns with only a practice note, the same thing will happen as happened in 2004? If we do not put something on the face of the bill that provides some framework for what the limitations would be, a practice note could be completely ignored.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Pauline McNeill

Is there a middle ground? Is there something other than a practice note?