• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

JUSTICE COMMITTEE Tuesday 3 March 2009 Session 3 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2009. 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 RR Donnelley. CONTENTS Tuesday 3 March 2009 Col. INTERESTS ......................................................................................................................................... 1613 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.................................................................................................................. 1614 Victim Statements (Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) Order 2009 (Draft) ................................................. 1614 JUSTICE COMMITTEE 7th Meeting 2009, Session 3 CONVENER *Bill Aitken (Glasgow ) (Con) DEPU TY CONVENER *Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Robert Brow n (Glasgow ) (LD) *Angela Constance (Livingston) (SNP) *Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) *Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP) *Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) *Stew art Maxw ell (West of Scotland) (SNP) COMMI TTEE SUBSTITU TES Aileen Campbell (South of Scotland) (SNP) John Lamont (Roxburgh and Berw ickshire) (Con) Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) (LD) Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Kenny MacAskill (Cabinet Secretary for Justice) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E Douglas Wands SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Anne Peat ASSISTANT CLERK Andrew Proudfoot LOC ATION Committee Room 1 1613 3 MARCH 2009 1614 Scottish Parliament 11:56 Meeting continued in public. Justice Committee Subordinate Legislation Tuesday 3 March 2009 Victim Statements (Prescribed Courts) [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 10:47] (Scotland) Order 2009 (Draft) The Convener: The committee re-enters public Interests session to deal with agenda item 6, which is consideration of subordinate legislation: the draft The Convener (Bill Aitken): Good morning Victim Statements (Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) ladies and gentlemen. I formally open the meeting Order 2009, which is subject to the affirmative by reminding everyone to switch off mobile procedure. phones. There are no apologies—there is a full I draw members’ attention to the terms of the turnout of members. order. The Subordinate Legislation Committee has Item 1 is a declaration of interests, which not drawn to the committee’s attention any matter enables me to welcome Stewart Maxwell to the in relation to the order. Prior to the formal Justice Committee. In accordance with section 3 procedure on the motion on the order at agenda of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the item 7, this is an opportunity for members to ask Scottish Parliament”, I invite him to declare any questions of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, interests that are relevant to the committee’s remit. Kenny MacAskill, and officials Bill Hepburn, who is head of the victims of crime branch, and Rachel Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP): I Rayner, who is a lawyer in the solicitors, criminal am not aware of any interests that I have that are justice, police and fire division. I welcome them. relevant to the committee, but I point members in Mr MacAskill, do you have anything to say in the direction of my entry in the register of opening? members’ interests on the Parliament's website. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny The Convener: Thank you. The committee will MacAskill): Thank you, convener. It may be now move into private session. helpful if I begin by explaining how victim statements work, and give the background to their 10:48 introduction. Meeting continued in private. Victim statements are designed to allow victims to tell the court how the crime has affected them emotionally, physically, financially or in any other way. In Scotland, the victim writes a victim statement, which the prosecutor hands to the court after a finding of guilt but before sentence is passed. The defence is given a copy of the statement at the same time. Making of such statements is entirely voluntary and no inference can be drawn from their presence or absence. Victim statements are administered by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which identifies eligible victims, invites them to participate, considers statements that are submitted in case there are disclosure issues, and presents the statement before the court once there has been a finding of guilt. Victims are normally invited to make a statement only after a decision has been made to prosecute the case, in order to ensure that they are not asked to go through the process of making a statement until there is a definite prospect that the case will go to court. It is worth saying a few words about the steps that were gone through before it was decided to introduce victim statements in courts of solemn jurisdiction across Scotland. The “Scottish 1615 3 MARCH 2009 1616 Strategy for Victims”, which was published in push up the costs to more than £500,000 a year January 2001, called for victims to be given for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal greater participation, information and support. Service, so money would have to be found from Victim statements are part of the drive to improve the justice programme. As I said, the take-up rate victims’ participation in the criminal justice system, for less serious cases was found to be low, so and they allow victims to articulate their feelings most of that £500,000 would be spent on inviting and thoughts—which can be therapeutic in some victims to participate—although, on the basis of cases and can allow victims input that helps to the pilot evaluation, it is likely that very few would improve victim satisfaction with the criminal justice take up that invitation. system. Extending victim statements to summary cases A consultation paper on victim statements was would result in a substantial increase in the issued in November 2001, and a report was workload of the Crown Office and Procurator produced in March 2002. Overall, although there Fiscal Service. Using 2007-08 as a benchmark, was support for a victim statement scheme, it was we see that there would be around 5,500 solemn thought that it would be sensible first to pilot the cases, but potentially more than 50,000 summary idea before a final decision was made. cases. Although victim statements are being Consequently, a pilot ran from November 2003 for introduced in solemn cases only, we will keep their two years in Edinburgh, Ayr and Kilmarnock and a use under review and may extend them to other full evaluation was undertaken and published. courts, if evidence suggests that our doing so would be beneficial to victims. Key findings from the pilot were that, although take-up rates in other jurisdictions averaged Robert Brown (Gla sgow) (LD): I am grateful to around 30 per cent, the take-up in Scotland was the cabinet secretary for his statement. I just want quite low at just under 15 per cent, which was to clarify how all this fits together and want to deal partly because the Scottish pilot included many first with the position after a plea of guilty or a relatively minor crimes. Response rates varied finding of guilt. The document, “Making a Victim from nil for fire-raising, to 60 per cent for murder Statement” says that the victim statement and causing death by dangerous driving, and “w ill normally be given to the court if the accused either included 46 per cent for rape and 51 per cent for pleads guilty or is found guilty”. sexual offences excluding rape. Of those who made statements, 86 per cent thought that doing Are there circumstances in which a victim so was probably or definitely the right decision, statement would not be given to the court after a and only 5 per cent thought that it was probably or plea of guilty or a finding of guilt? definitely the wrong decision. Although 39 per cent Kenny MacAskill: No. If there was a particular of respondents found that making a statement was problem with disclosure, the statement would have upsetting, 61 per cent felt better for having made a been sifted out by the Crown before that stage. At statement, and some respondents who found the the imposition of the sentence, the procurator process upsetting also felt better afterwards, which fiscal will hand up a schedule of previous highlights the therapeutic benefits of victim convictions and will, in due course, also hand up a statements. victim statement, if that is appropriate. That process will be formalised. The statement will be 12:00 part of the Crown’s body of papers, along with the schedule of previous convictions, if that applies. It is clear that some victims, particularly victims On disclosure, in any situation where the of serious crimes, find victim statements to be statement would have been inappropriate for beneficial. We therefore aim to introduce victim whatever reason, I presume that it would be sifted statements throughout Scotland on 1 April this out. Such situations would be few and far year. Statements are, for a number of reasons, between. We hope to have a holistic approach, in being introduced only in courts of solemn which the statement is ingathered and is with the jurisdiction. The main reason is that the Crown. At the conclusion of the case, the Crown independent evaluation of the pilot has indicated will put forward matters of relevance to the court— that take-up rates for minor offences would be any previous convictions and the view of the very low. victim, which has been ingathered. There would also be a disparity between the Robert Brown: At that stage, would the defence cost of administrating statements in solemn cases always get a copy of the statement? only and administrating statements in solemn and summary cases.

Load more

  15

Copy Link