J2/02/18/A JUSTICE 2 COMMITTEE AGENDA 18th Meeting, 2002 (Session 1) Wednesday 8 May 2002 The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in the Chamber, Assembly Hall, The Mound, Edinburgh. 1. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will take oral evidence on the general principles of the Bill at Stage 1 from— Scottish Executive officials: Jane Richardson, Jo Knox, Elizabeth Carmichael, Sharon Grant, Alan Quinn, Gillian Thompson, Stephen Sadler, Jan Marshall, Charles Garland, Gordon McNicoll. 2. Public petition: The Committee will consider petition PE490 by Jacqueline Reid on sentencing of convicted paedophiles. 3. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: The Committee will consider written evidence received and consider who to invite to give oral evidence on the Bill at Stage 1. Gillian Baxendine Clerk to the Committee, Tel 85054 The following papers are enclosed for this meeting: Items 1 and 3 – Criminal Justice Bill Adviser paper on written submissions J2/02/18/1 Note from Executive on key issues in the Bill J2/02/18/2 Letter of 29 April from Minister for Justice on amendments J2/02/18/3 Submissions received commenting solely on section 43 (Children) J2/02/18/4 Other written submissions J2/02/18/5 [The Committee has received over 260 submissions. Submissions received as at 2 May are being circulated with this agenda to J2 members. Submissions received after this date will be circulated in due course. Public submissions will appear on the website. A set will be made available for any MSP or member of staff to consult in Document Supply Centre, PHQ. A further set will be available for the public to consult in the Parliament’s Visitor Centre, George IV Bridge] Item 2 – Petition PE490 Note by Clerk (petition attached) J2/02/18/6 The following papers are attached for information: Note on visit to Tain PF office J2/02/18/7 2nd Submission from the Procurator Fiscal Society on COPFS J2/02/18/8 inquiry Papers not circulated Items 1 and 3 - Members are reminded to bring with them copies of the Criminal Justice Bill and Accompanying Documents, available from Document Supply Centre or at the following website: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parl_bus/legis.html#50. The Scottish Executive has published a consultation “Vital Voices: Helping vulnerable witnesses give evidence.” This is available from Document Supply Centre or online at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/justice/hvwm-00.asp The closing date for responses to the Executive is 31 July. J2/02/18/1 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL (as at 2 May) Note by the Adviser General More than 250 submissions were received. The vast majority of these concerned the proposals contained in section 43 of the Bill (Physical punishment of children). Most of these were personal submissions (often from couples) although some were submitted on behalf of organisations. Most of the individual submissions were opposed to the Executive’s proposals. The reasons given for this opposition were fairly consistent, and are set out below (Part 7). A significant minority of submissions (generally from organisations concerned with child welfare) were supportive of the policy pursued in section 43, and many of these took the view that section 43 did not go far enough in prohibiting the use of physical punishment of children. In view of the extensive submissions made, the following summary is confined to highlighting issues of concern and questions raised in the submissions. Submissions which merely express approval or agreement, or repeat previously expressed support for proposals, are not highlighted. Part 1 – Protection of the Public at large Submissions in respect of this part of the Bill were received from the Scottish Criminal Records Office [2], Justice for Victims (Scotland) [29], the Parole Board for Scotland [35], the Faculty of Advocates* [141], the Association of Directors of Social Work [160], the Cross Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on Men’s Violence Against Women and Children [191], the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland [194] and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland [197], Mr John Wilson [216], Scottish Women’s Aid [218], Age Concerns Scotland [223], and the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland. The Executive’s proposals are broadly welcomed in these submissions, although a number of specific concerns / questions are raised: • The SCRO comments that the means by which the Risk Management Authority obtained criminal records (in relation to the development of Risk Assessment Orders) would require to be developed and formalised. • The Parole Board for Scotland notes that the Order for Lifelong Restriction would be relevant only to a very small number of offenders each year, and for that reason expresses the hope that the legislation would make clear that such order should only be imposed in cases identified as posing a “very high risk of serious re-offending”. (Similar concerns are expressed by the Association of Directors of Social Work concerning the possible extension of these procedures to other “prescribed categories” of offenders.) The Board also draws attention to problems associated with the assessment of risk. At a practical level the Board also draws attention to the “acute shortage of 1 suitably qualified clinical and forensic psychologists in Scotland”, and also notes that since the defence will normally wish to commission its own risk assessment report, thus adding to the demand for expertise in this area. The problem of accused person’s refusing to cooperate with court-appointed assessors is noted, as are difficulties which might be encountered if an assessment is to be carried out in a “penal establishment”. • The Association of Directors of Social Work seeks clarification as to whether a risk assessment order could be obtained where an accused is remitted from the sheriff court to the High Court for sentence. The association also seeks clarification as to who would carry out Risk Assessment Reports and queries whether giving sole responsibility to a single risk assessor might not detract from the multi-disciplinary approach advocated in the guidance on the Sex Offenders Act 1997. It is also suggested that the responsibility for risk management plans might shift from those responsible for the accused’s detention in prison towards management of the risks in the community, as the offender approaches release. • The Cross Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on Men’s Violence Against Women and Children raises concerns over offenders being able instruct their own risk assessment report – how would this be monitored and used, how would it be funded and who would set down the criteria for the report and ensure that the assessor was accredited? (A similar question is raised by Scottish Women’s Aid [218]). The group also asks for clarification on whether the offender would be remanded while the risk assessment was carried out. Concerns were also raised about how the OLR would work if the offender were to be transferred out of Scotland. • The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland expresses concerns about the resource implications of police officers’ participation in local authority risk management plans. • John Wilson [216] recommends that the procedures for rehabilitation of elderly sex offenders should be revised, so that assessments and final return to independence should be carried out in prison and not in Local Authority Homes for the elderly. • Scottish Women’s Aid [218] asks why murder is excluded from the OLR, expresses the hope that these measures will be applied to repeat offenders and in particular perpetrators of stalking and domestic abuse. It is also noted that the “risk” element is defined as the offender presenting a risk to the public at large. Will this include domestic abuse, where there is no risk to “the public”? The question is raised as to what would happen if the prosecutor does not move for a risk assessment order. Will this in any way preclude the court from making the order? This organisation also expresses the concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse might abuse the information gathered in the risk assessment process to make counter-allegations of criminal behaviour against women. Questions are also raised as to the right of an accused to appeal against the refusal of the court to make an OLR (?). Can this procedure be applied to children and young persons? The general comment is made that “on the surface, this part of the Bill does not appear to give women greater protection from their partner or ex-partner who seriously damages or endangers their physical or psychological well-being”. 2 • Age Concern Scotland express the hope that those involved in risk assessment consider sexual offences against vulnerable older people in the same light as such offences against children • The Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland recommends that the Risk Management Authority be subject to the General Specific Duties of the Race Relations Act 2000. Part 2 – Victims’ Rights Submissions in respect of this part of the Bill were received from the Scottish Criminal Records Office [2], Justice for Victims (Scotland) [29], The District Courts Association [116], Save the Children [138], the Faculty of Advocates* [141], the Association of Directors of Social Work [160], the Joint Faiths Advisory Board on Criminal Justice [187], the Cross Party Group in the Scottish Parliament on Men’s Violence Against Women and Children [191], the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland [194] and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland [197], Scottish Women’s Aid [218], Barnardo’s Scotland [226] The Executive’s proposals were broadly welcomed in these submissions. • The Scottish Criminal Records Office [2] queries whether the list of persons entitled to represent the interests of a deceased victim (in section 14(10)) excludes the possibility of a person not a member of the deceased’s family representing their interests.