• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE Wednesday 1 December 2004 Session 2 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2004. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by Astron. CONTENTS Wednesday 1 December 2004 Col. DANGEROUS DRIVING AND THE LAW....................................................................................................... 1285 EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND THE LAW..................................................................................................... 1292 PROTECTION FROM ABUSE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2001 .................................................................................. 1298 REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ............................................................................................... 1302 LEGAL FEES (TRANSPARENCY) ............................................................................................................. 1305 JUSTICE AND HOM E AFFAIRS IN EUROPE................................................................................................. 1309 JUSTICE 1 COMMITTEE 37th Meeting 2004, Session 2 CONVENER *Pauline Mc Neill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab) DEPU TY CONVENER *Stew art Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) (Lab) *Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP) *Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con) *Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow ) (Lab) Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD) *attended COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP) Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab) Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con) Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Alison Walker SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Douglas Wands ASSISTANT CLERK Douglas Thornton LOC ATION Committee Room 4 1285 1 DECEMBER 2004 1286 Scottish Parliament That echoes something that I and, I suspect, others have encountered in other contexts. Of course, in many ways that stems from the status Justice 1 Committee of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as independent and above the fray, which is an Wednesday 1 December 2004 important part of Scots law. However, in many other countries, in particular in the Netherlands, [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:03] the equivalent services act, in effect, on behalf of victims. I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that a long Dangerous Driving and the Law history underpins why we have a prosecution service that is independent, rather than one that The Convener (Pauline McNeill): Good champions the rights of victims. It might be useful, morning and welcome to the 37th meeting this year not just for ourselves but for others, if we of the Justice 1 Committee. Marlyn Glen is late but understood more clearly why Scots law treats she will join us. I have received no other prosecution in that way. Being better informed apologies. I ask members to do the usual and might help us to form a view on whether that is the check that they have switched off their phones. right way for the prosecution to continue to stand in Scots law. Many of the issues to do with the We have a number of agenda items, which are Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service feeling primarily to do with outstanding business. Agenda unable to respond to queries, particularly from item 1 is dangerous driving and the law. Members victims, stem from the fact that the service is there will note that the clerk has prepared a note giving not to represent victims, but to represent an the background to consideration of that topic. abstract concept of a disinterested prosecution I invite members to consider what further action, service. from a number of options, they wish to take. There I suspect that this is not the moment to engage is the option of examining the consultation paper in that debate—I cannot contribute to it as I am not from the Home Office, which is to be published well-enough informed—but it might be appropriate imminently. There is the option of writing to the to commission someone to produce a paper to Crown Office asking to be informed of the help us understand why that remains the right way outcome of the pilot for gathering more forward in Scots law. comprehensive statistics on road deaths and serious injury cases. Scotland’s Campaign against Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP): I Irresponsible Drivers raised the question of will be brief. I also come quite late to consideration transparency in the review process. There is a of the issue; that is one of the problems when a variety of suggested next steps if the committee new member joins a committee and an inquiry has wishes to pursue them. I invite comments from been going on for some time. Indeed, previously members. the issue was dealt with elsewhere. I am interested in finding the best way of pursuing the Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) matter. (SNP): As a number of us are new to the committee, we have not been party to the I was struck by some of the inconsistencies in committee’s previous consideration of the wide the charges that were levelled against drivers who range of issues that are associated with the were involved in remarkably similar incidents. I do matter. The clerk’s note is useful in drawing not want to go into the circumstances, but in one together where the committee has been so far. case that was mentioned somebody was charged with careless driving while in another case Statistics ought to concern us, but I will focus on someone who committed an offence that seemed one issue that touches on concerns that have less serious was charged with dangerous driving. been raised in other contexts, and on which it The penalties for the two offences are significantly might be useful for us to commission a paper to different—in fact, one is seen almost as a help us understand where it comes from. I refer to misdemeanour. I note the work that is being done a comment from a correspondent that is included in considering the potential for a third charge—a in our note: middle way—to be made available to the “Victims and their families should have the right to hav e Procurator Fiscal Service. the deaths of their loved ones investigated thoroughly … It is also unacceptable that the Crow n Office and Procurator What response have we had from various Fiscal Service remain unaccountable to the victims’ families procurators fiscal with regard to the criteria that and in so doing add to the distress of families at a time of they apply when determining which charge to intense grief.” pursue? I do not want to stray into areas that are not within the committee’s remit. It has come across not just in correspondence but in a number 1287 1 DECEMBER 2004 1288 of cases over the years that there is dissatisfaction determining the charge in any case in which the with the Procurator Fiscal Service, in that it seems standard of driving has to be judged? I need to that some individuals who have seriously injured check that we have not done that before. I do not or killed another person as a result of their driving think that we have. got off relatively lightly. Even if they were found guilty, the charge was often careless driving. Perhaps part of the dissatisfaction with the current 10:15 system arises because people feel that the Stewart Stevenson: In making my proposal, I charge, never mind the punishment, does not fit did not make any suggestion as to who should do the crime. I wonder how we can best advance the research. For me, the core of the matter is not consideration of that, if indeed the committee has the Crown Office’s view. Perhaps the Scottish taken evidence on it. Parliament information centre could help us to compare and contrast the situation in Scotland, Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab): The where the prosecution represents the public point that Stewart Stevenson made is interesting. interest, with that in other countries, where the Having read the note by the clerk, my inclination prosecution represents the interest of victims, so was to choose option (c), which involves that we understand the history of why we have “seeking information on the process for review ing charges ended up with the approach that we have. brought.” Perhaps SPICe could also tell us what academic research or other information exists that suggests Stewart Stevenson’s suggestion would take us a that there is particular merit in the way that we step back from that and it might inform our consideration of the information when it comes, deal with things compared with the way that other jurisdictions do them or vice versa. I suspect that which would be helpful. There is an issue about we know. I could probably say what the Crown the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service being one step removed, rather than being the Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is likely to tell us in about three sentences—although it would, of representative of the injured party. I am more than course, be sure to tell us in six or eight pages— happy to see statistics, but we could get bogged down in them for some time. I am more interested and I think that the view of somebody from outside the system might be of greater value. However, I in the process of bringing cases to court, seeing am in my colleagues’ hands on that matter. what the charges are, why they are chosen and what the outcomes might be. Both sets of The Convener: That is well outside the remit of comments that we have heard so far are helpful in the inquiry. We are considering dangerous driving focusing on which option to plump for. and the law, but you are asking us to take a general view on our prosecution system.

Load more

  21

Copy Link