³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

In the light of the advice that we have received and of the Scottish Government’s clear intention, are members content to accept Mr Golden’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

We come to our final new petition this morning. PE2073, lodged by Robert Macdonald, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check that address information is up to date when issuing a court summons and to allow those being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed rather than the current system of simply proceeding to issue an arrest warrant.

The petition was prompted by the arrest of a paramedic who had missed a court date after the summons was sent to an old address. The petitioner insisted that, as the police were able to obtain the correct address for the individual, the court should have been able to issue the summons to the correct address. In essence, I think, the police were able to get the correct address to arrest the individual, but they were not able to get the correct address to issue the summons to.

The SPICe briefing outlines provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, including provisions for granting a warrant to apprehend the accused if it is proved to the court that the accused received the citation or has knowledge of its contents.

The Scottish Government has responded that the petition relates to an area in which it has no policy position or role, and that it is an operational matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland.

We have also received a submission from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which adds further detail to the SPICe briefing on the processes and circumstances for seeking warrants for summary court proceedings. It notes that prosecutors should only seek initiating warrants where it is in the public interest to do so, for example, because there is information the accused is avoiding citation. It also notes that, where information is provided that the accused is no longer at their address, and their whereabouts are unknown, there is a mechanism for the outstanding warrant to be reviewed by a prosecutor who will, taking into account the prospects of tracing the accused and the nature of the offence, consider whether there is a public interest in pursuing the prosecution.

Do members have any suggestions for action? I am minded to keep the petition open at the moment. It struck me that there was a lack of basic shared communication that could have resolved the matter. Might we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petition—in particular, in the case that the petitioner raises, to ask how Police Scotland was able to identify where the individual was in order to perform an arrest, but it was not possible for that information to be made available when it came to sending the summons? Does that seem reasonable?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1975, which is on reforming the law relating to strategic lawsuits against public participation, which are sometimes, or probably more commonly, referred to as SLAPPs. The petition, which was lodged by Roger Mullin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation.

We last considered the petition on 4 October last year. At that time, we agreed to take evidence from stakeholders and, later, from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I am pleased to welcome as our witnesses the petitioner, Roger Mullin, who will address the meeting shortly; Justin Borg-Barthet, who is the convener of the anti-SLAPP research hub; Graeme Johnston, a member of the Scotland anti-SLAPP sub-working group of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition; and Ahsan Mustafa, a member of the Law Society of Scotland’s civil justice committee.

Good morning to you all, and welcome to our proceedings. As we get into this, if you wish to come in on any of the questions that colleagues ask, please indicate to me. When colleagues are speaking, they will take note that you are seeking to come in. We will clarify who is coming in, so that those who are noting for the Official Report understand who is contributing at any given point. Rather than just speaking extemporaneously, please make sure that you are introduced through the chair.

We have received a written submission from Michelle Thomson MSP, who is unable to attend the meeting. The submission reiterates her support for the petition and notes that the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill passed its second reading in the United Kingdom Parliament in February. She argues that Scotland has fallen behind other jurisdictions and that we risk becoming a destination of choice for SLAPP action, which may very well form some of the discussion that we are going to have.

I would be grateful if Roger Mullin would say a few words by way of introduction.

Thank you, Mr Mullin.

I see that Mr Ewing has arrived. You have not missed anything, Mr Ewing. We have just heard the introduction to our evidence session on the petition regarding SLAPPs. I know that you are particularly concerned about that and will wish to come in with questions shortly.

Is a governmental position of taking a reactive rather than a proactive approach to that possibility not a reasonable one?

I hear what you say there. Might not the Government argue that, in an otherwise congested legislative environment, to act and to prioritise that when other matters need to be progressed might not be wise in terms of its use of resource and time?

It is good to have that on the record.

Yes, that aspect is at the heart of the petition.

Mr Borg-Barthet, I want to understand—you alluded to this—the extent to which the issue is a problem about legal threats rather than about court action. Is that where the centre of gravity is in this matter?

Good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our first agenda item is a formal decision simply to agree to take in private agenda items 4 and 5. Item 4 relates to a request concerning an anonymous submission and item 5 is to consider the evidence that we are shortly to hear. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

You have lived all your life with the species being part of our natural habitat and you obviously have a passion for them. What characterises the appeal of the lapwing, the curlew and the capercaillie for you?