Chamber and committees

I welcome to the meeting Mr Justin Farrell, who is head of the criminal allegations against the police division of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I thank Mr Farrell for providing written evidence. We are looking to spend an hour or so on this evidence session.

I will kick things off by following up on Sharon Dowey’s line of questioning with the PIRC a short time ago. This relates to criminal allegations against police officers. We are aware that a criminal allegation against a police officer would be reported to the Crown Office based on “a reasonable inference” that they have committed an offence—that is different from what happens with ordinary members of the public. How do you identify potentially malicious or vexatious complaints within the system, and how is it ensured that that identification takes place as early as possible in the process, so that officers are not subjected to lengthy and unnecessary investigations?

That is interesting. Perhaps we underestimate the number of occasions when officers from outside the Police Scotland area are on duty in Scotland for a variety of reasons.

My final question relates to the duty of candour, which we discussed with the witnesses from the PIRC. You have responded to some questions on the delays experienced with investigations, and the PIRC has suggested incorporating a duty to co-operate into the duty of candour, under which officers would be required to provide operational statements timeously where their status is clearly that of a witness.

In relation to the introduction of a statutory duty of candour, can you advise whether CAAPD currently experiences issues arising from delayed statements—I think that the answer to that will probably be yes—or other information from Police Scotland, and whether the PIRC’s proposal on incorporating a requirement to produce operational statements would be helpful for CAAPD?

That answer is helpful.

Russell Findlay can ask his final question on the bill.

A very good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have apologies from John Swinney. I welcome Jackie Dunbar to the meeting.

Our first item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on two legislative consent memoranda—LCM-S6-43 and LCM-S6-43a—that have been lodged by the Scottish Government in relation to the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill.

I welcome to the meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, and Scottish Government officials. Ms Alison Morris is head of serious organised crime policy—divert and deter; Kristy Adams is a policy officer in the organised crime unit; and Ruth Swanson is a solicitor in the equalities and criminal justice division.

I refer members to paper 1. I intend to allow up to 20 minutes for this evidence session.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks on the legislative consent memoranda.

The next item of business is consideration of oral evidence on an affirmative instrument.

We are joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Susan Black, who is a senior policy officer in the civil law and legal system division, and Emma Thomson, who is a solicitor in the legal directorate.

I refer members to paper 2. I intend to allow up to 10 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

I have a supplementary question about policy, practice and procedures. In one of the evidence sessions with witnesses with lived experience, we heard from a witness in relation to the provision of family liaison officers. We heard that her family had not been given support by a family liaison officer in the circumstances of an unexplained death—you are probably aware of the case. I found it quite distressing to hear that.

You have spoken about highlighting to Police Scotland issues that you are seeing emerge around good practice. Would the onus be on the PIRC to flag issues of the type that I have just set out, or would it perhaps be more on HMICS?

That is helpful. I must admit that I was unaware of the difference in the threshold in respect of police officers being reported to the Crown. It is helpful to understand that better.

Are you saying that, where more evidence obviously emerges in respect of an individual who has been reported to the Crown in relation to an incident, that would be passed to you for further consideration?

I presume that, once you have a report and have had time to consider it, the Crown Office processes the report in the same way as it processes any other report in terms of the threshold for evidence that is required under Scots law.

As the cabinet secretary noted, we are aware that there will be further LCMs, which the committee will consider.

Are members content to delegate responsibility to me and the clerks to approve a short factual report to the Parliament on the LCMs?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now have a brief suspension to allow for a changeover of Government witnesses.