CPR 2

Justice 1 Committee

Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) () Bill

Written submission from William Young

As a respondee to the consultation held on the recommendations of Summary Justice Review Committee I am delighted to be given this opportunity to provide written evidence to express my concerns to a couple of the proposals in this Bill. I do hope that my concerns provide you with an opportunity to ratify changes or deletions to the Bill if you are satisfied that these concerns are justified.

Can I start by declaring an interest as a Presiding for Aberdeen City a former member of the Children’s Panel and a current member of the Children’s Panel advisory Committee.

The provisions of the Bill have 8 main policy areas however I only want to comment upon the one area I have concern for, all other areas I consider welcome or appropriate.

1 Alternative to Prosecution

Scotland’s proud history of Justice demands that justice is not only done but seen to be done. Justice in my opinion needs to be administered quickly fairly and above all by a Court of Law.

The introduction of a “fiscal fine” was a parting of the way as to how Scotland operated its judicial system however I agree and accept that fiscal fines are of benefit to Scotland’s justice system in appropriate and well laid out circumstance’s. Of course only the Lord and the Fiscal in each Region of Scotland are aware of the guidelines for the use of Fiscal fines. To my mind nothing has changed and that fiscal fines should only operate at the lowest level and not beyond.

The fact that a fine offered by the fiscal represents no guilt on the accused part is acceptable and whilst I accept that there is no statutory law in Scotland which determines that a criminal matter must be prosecuted it is accepted that a fiscal fine is offered where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. The statistics for 2004-05, show that prosecutions were completed in 852 cases in the High Court, 3,611 cases in and Jury Courts, 83,355 cases in Sheriff Summary Courts (and Stipendiary Magistrates courts in Glasgow) and 41,292 cases in District Courts (excluding Stipendiary Magistrates courts in Glasgow). also dealt with 76,008 cases using alternatives to prosecution.1

What concerns me and I hope your committee is that in Scotland in 2004/05 there were 76008 people who committed a crime where there was sufficient

1 Fiscal office 2004/05

1 CPR 2 evidence to prosecute in a criminal Court or in other circumstances yet these people received a fiscal fine or an alternative disposal to prosecution. These people have no criminal record in respect of that offence and are free to commit this type of offence again without receiving a criminal record because it fits in with the confidential guidelines of the and the Regions Fiscals as to what constitutes a fiscal fine or any other alternative disposal. I admit that many of these alternative prosecutions would be for motoring offences and I accept that if a person has 4 speeding offences in a three year period he will eventually come before a court under the totting up procedures.

These numbers strike me as pretty incredible and when you consider that the number of people who have been offered fiscal fines or alternative disposals runs at the rate of 184% over those being prosecuted in the District Court – as it is only cases that presently can be tried in the District Court that can presently be offered fiscal fines- you will perhaps begin to see why people like me are concerned at the introduction of higher fiscal fines for higher offences.

Scotland’s great legal tradition of the Lord Advocate being our “guardian angel” in prosecuting for and on behalf of the people of Scotland is one that remains distinct and must be preserved. There is however only a limit as to what the people of Scotland will or should accept from our Guardian angel.

It is my submission that the people of Scotland do not welcome or expect the Lord Advocate through the Fiscal to be in a position to offer more and more fiscal fines with a higher and higher value where he can clearly show sufficient evidence to prosecute. Please remember we are speaking about Common Law offences here not statute offences these offences are unique to Scotland and its legal system. The fiscal because of the confidential guidelines which he through the Lord Advocate operates becomes a very dangerous person indeed in Scotland fight against crime and the perpetrators of crime.

Taking Aberdeen the third biggest City in Scotland as an example you will see that the District Court presently operates at less than capacity. In fact for over one year it has not operated on a Tuesday. Its business is finished each day before 1pm yet you are giving reasons of why more and more fiscal fines are being brought in is because it will allow the Courts more time to handle more serious offences. Perhaps I am being naïve but if there is no business to serve the District Court presently the Fiscal increases his power to hand out higher fiscal fines for more serious offences where is this extra business going to come from that the Courts presently cannot cope with?

It is incredible to think Anti Social behaviour will now be under minded by the committal of lower ended common law offences receiving fiscal fines instead of prosecution. The Scottish Executives approach to Anti Social Behaviour doesn’t just lye with the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 it lye’s with providing people who’s life’s have been made a misery with a promise that people who commit anti social behaviour will be prosecuted in a Court of law not offered a fine by a law officer called the .

2 CPR 2

Nothing in my opinion undermines the rule of law or the people’s confidence in the law as much as a fiscal fine.

Scotland does not want or need the Lord Advocate via the fiscal to be the judge and jury in Common Law offences. The Scottish people want to be secure in the knowledge that crimes that affects them most which is Community crime such as petty crime including breach of the peace minor assault class C drug offences reset vandalism fraud theft or theft by shoplifting are not the subject to fiscal fines or fiscal compensation orders they want to know that these people who commit these nuisance Community crimes are being sentenced by the Courts and more importantly receive criminal records which means that if the do it again and again and again they will find themselves being dealt with more and more appropriately whether that be prison to one extreme or help by the social work department via probation on the other.

In your summary of key points it points out why you intend to introduce such measures and what benefits will occur as a result. Can I say that in agreeing it can be counter productive to give people a criminal record for low level offences but at £500.00 a shot what constitutes a low level offence? Let us be reasonable here and agree that at £500 that offence must be pretty special and a level two offence at that. Allowing a fiscal fine for a level two offence in my opinion brings the justice system into disrepute with the people who serve it and the people it is there to protect.

Dealing with minor cases in a proportionate manner frees up the courts to deal with more serious offences. This is interesting are you telling the Scottish people that people are getting away with serious offences in Scotland due to Court time. I think not. I think this is scaremongering at its best. The fact that you state that more serious cases will proceed quicker is admirable in the extreme and very welcome and that those offered fiscal fines will still be able to take there case to court and persistent offenders will not be offered a fiscal fine. However let us take motoring offences or current common law offences that are offered a fiscal fine presently I am sure you will agree with me that in a five year period I can have 5 speeding offences without bothering the courts so in effect each year I can commit an offence punishable by law and remain conviction free. This same process can and does happen with Common Law offences except it can and will be worse because providing I keep committing an offence that is offered a fiscal fine I can commit that offence day in day out and the fiscal will not be aware of any of my previous misdemeanours why because by offering me a fiscal fine I have committed no offence. If I continue to commit the same offences then I will be offered a fiscal fine and provided I can pay I get off “Scot free”. That is some advert for justice in Scotland.

There is no easy answer to dealing with crime and the causes of crime there is however ways of dealing with those that commit crime and that is to put them in front of a Court. Scotland judicial system is the envy of the World and rightly so however you undermine it by introducing unjustified fiscal fines operated by an unelected person who operates guidelines in secret.

3 CPR 2

It is important for you to understand that by allowing this Bill to increase fiscal fines for more serious offences and introducing fiscal Compensation orders you bring in my opinion the Lord Advocate our “guardian angel” of justice into disrepute with the very people that he through his position represents the people of Scotland.

Turning to the next ludicrous proposal a person who is offered a fiscal fine accepts the fiscal fine unless he states otherwise. This is simply absurd and I would draw your attention to the POLL TAX where the theory was wonderful you pay for what you use but the reality was in practise stupid silly unworkable and downright unfair because it penalised the poor. Those in lower incomes became the people who paid the most rather than those that could afford to pay the most. So society’s aim -or certainly the society I want to live ins aim- of the rich or better off subsidising those less fortunate than themselves was turned round and in turn penalised those who could least afford to be penalised.

Well believe it or not the proposals in this Bill are like the poll tax because it introduces a two tier legal system one for those that can afford to pay and another for those that cannot. Not only does it provide a monitory disadvantage it provides a huge disadvantage to those who are not educated to a standard that would understand what these fiscal fines mean. A Fiscal fine does not take into consideration an accused’s means it offers only a fixed penalty which by its definition is fixed. What is the point or indeed justification in putting a fiscal fine of £500 and a compensation order of £5,000 on a person who earns £79.00 per fortnight through the jobseeker allowance scheme?

As usual the only people that fiscal fines will hurt are those that are disadvantaged against, through a variety of reasons.

Scotland needs a legal system that is fit for the 21st Century and beyond however that system must met with the approval of the rule of law and it must also meet with the approval of the people who undertake to uphold that principle day in day out. This section of the Bill allows an unelected official to be in a position to abuse his tenure with the people of Scotland as through his secret private guidance notes on fiscal fines -the use of- he controls our legal system.

In effect you our Parliament are giving control to an unelected person who is passing that right to his regional fiscals who are passing it through their chain of command to the very bottom of the chain where a newly qualified fiscal marks the papers Fiscal fine end of story. Where are the checks and balances?

The alternative of a fiscal fine, A Court of Law does provide for some justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done.

In Parliament and in your Committees hands lies Scotland’s judicial future you operate not just for today but for tomorrow and beyond. It is so important that

4 CPR 2 you get this legislation right. Go too far and you undermine the whole judicial process don’t go far enough and the same applies. I would ask you to reject both an upgrade of fiscal fines and the use of an accused accepting a fiscal fine if he does not reply to it as neither of these points within the Bill live up to the high standards of judicial expectation that Scotland deserves or wants.

Finally I would ask you to consider this one question in 21st Century Scotland do we want to be handing out more powers to an unelected person who operates confidential guidelines that the Public have no right to see? If the answer is no then reject both parts of this part of the Bill. If on the other hand the answer is yes then there will be an introduction of a two tier justice system one for the rich and one for the poor. The Scottish Parliaments remedy to Scotland’s judicial system of law and order will be likened to Margaret Thatcher who insisted that there was no such thing as a society. Well there is a society and that society demands that you our Parliament doesn’t exploit the weak disadvantaged uneducated in society that’s why your committee should shout from the roof top –no pun intended- and throw out these unwelcome measures as again in my opinion the people deserve better from our Parliament.

William Young BA MSc JP 10 March 2006

5