���˿���

Good morning. I wonder if witnesses could help me to understand some of the technical subsections. There is a lot more to the provisions than I first appreciated.

First, am I right in saying that what we have been discussing is the possibility of virtual attendance? The default position is that someone is expected to attend, but it is a matter of allowing for virtual attendance. Is that right?

My reading of it is that there is a separate proposal for national jurisdiction, which gives me a wee bit of cause for concern. The way that you have been answering the committee’s questions suggests that, if the bill were passed and we had national jurisdiction for custody matters, for example, it would be as if it were assumed that, by dint of the provision, they would be dealt with virtually. However, that is not the case in the bill, as it removes the geographical limitations. Is that right?

Except that the law will not say that.

Witnesses might not be able to help me with this now, but you might be able to clarify it at a further date. I am reading through the bill’s explanatory notes in relation to proposed new section 5B(5) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The subsection would provide the

“sheriff court that has heard the initial calling of case with continuing jurisdiction over the proceedings (and that sheriff court can be presided over by a sheriff of any sheriffdom)”,

so sheriffs could also go into the sheriffdom.

The explanatory notes continue:

“Subsection (6) confirms that this continuing jurisdiction can continue until the conclusion of the proceedings, unless the proceedings come to an early end”.

I can see that there is some sense in that, so far—where there is a guilty plea and for simple matters, that would give some flexibility. However, I am unclear about what it means in relation to petition cases, because of the way in which the explanatory notes are written, although I might need to read until the end. It says:

“proceedings on indictment that follow from proceedings on petition are to be treated as the same proceedings”

and that

“Subsection (7) means that a court which began dealing with a case at the petition stage can continue dealing with it”.

I am not sure whether that is different. It goes on:

“In practice, because jurisdiction under subsection (5) ends with an accused being fully committed for trial ... subsection (7) is likely to be relevant only where an accused makes an early guilty plea”.

I do not know whether you can help me with this, but, unless I have misunderstood the situation, I think that there is cause for concern. We are trying to get some flexibility in the process through virtual attendance with rules and national jurisdiction, for good, commonsense reasons. However, in petition cases, I do not know what that actually means.

We can only guess what is meant by something being in “the interests of justice” here. We do not know whether it means someone being able to give evidence in their own home. Supposing that the proposed measures allow for that, I would have thought—and what you are saying is—that there will then be an imperative to develop systems, notwithstanding the points that you make in your written submission about a person who may struggle with technology. Would you accept that it is not just a question of that, and that it is also about the quality of the evidence? I suppose that those two things marry up.

I found your submission really helpful. It is a bugbear for a lot of politicians that, although we like to see modernisation and change for the better, and digital platforms give that, we do not want to throw away the opportunities for people to do things in the way that they prefer—for example, being able to phone rather than having to email, or being able to see a hard copy. Some people will have that preference. To me, that is what your submission speaks to, and I found it really helpful.

Yes, that is what I thought.

Between us, we have raised several areas where the approach needs to be refined. Given what I have suggested about the fact that the Lord Advocate has much greater discretion with regard to the issue of national jurisdiction and what you have described in relation to petition cases, it seems to me that the bill wants to go beyond the commonsense initial procedures to give the court system a bit more freedom to decide where substantial trials would take place. Does it concern you that there is a bit more behind some of this modernisation than just a desire to make things practical?

Aye. Do you feel that some refining is needed as to what the criteria would be for virtual attendance?

Good morning. I have a follow-on from Ben Macpherson’s questions on virtual attendance. I had the opportunity of visiting Victim Support Scotland’s offices to see the impressive facilities there for giving evidence remotely. Kate, as you said, the bill allows virtual attendance for non-vulnerable witnesses where that is in “the interests of justice”; it is not an automatic right, or anything of that sort. I know that your facilities are top quality, and that it will be important to develop them, given your answers to Ben Macpherson. I imagine that the court will be interested in such factors, because it will have to balance them when making decisions about witnesses giving evidence virtually. The facilities that you have, and are developing, will be important in considering that test.

Will that affect your targets for the handling of cases?

You also outlined your additional responsibilities in relation to the new corroboration laws, which, of course, are the result of a court decision. Have there been any discussions with the Government on the implications of that? From what you described, there are going to be additional costs. In fact, we may not even know the impact of the new corroboration laws yet.