Chamber and committees

Mr Keane, you tiptoed into this area earlier, so I agree that it is probably a question for you. For completeness, we could do with an understanding of how we got here.

Thank you very much for that. In no way do I regret asking the question, because it is important that we have an understanding of the context in which the verdict emerged. Would it be fair to say that the historical development of the position in which we find ourselves has fuelled a lack of clarity in juries’ decision making?

I will follow up on Pauline McNeill’s line of questioning by asking about the impact of the recent decision of the High Court of Justiciary, sitting as an appeal court, on aspects of corroboration in sexual offence cases. Do you consider that that affects the balance that I am interested in?

Thank you.

In a sense, that is my point about the lack of clarity. In the minds of jurors, they are perhaps not making the hardest of judgments between guilty and not guilty. You have marshalled a number of scenarios in which different perspectives might pertain as they make those decisions.

Convener, if you will forgive me, I think that what we discussed as a committee—we might have discussed it in private when we looked at some timescales for FAIs—was that there appeared to be a pattern that prison-related FAIs took longer to be commenced than many other FAIs. That relates to the serious point that Pauline McNeill raised about the Allan Marshall case. Again, that is a reasonable issue to put to the Crown because I do not know the answer. Instinctively, I agree that families should have unfettered access to information, but I do not know how that sits alongside proper investigation about the potential for criminality. Those are legitimate issues that we need to explore.

What Russell Findlay said helps to tease out what we need to do practically. I am not firm in my view—and I do not think that Gill Imery is—that there is a need for a new system, provided that the FAI system works as we all believe it should.

There is a course of action that we need to take. I certainly could not sign up to a new system, and I am in favour of people doing what they should be doing, so I would rather explore the position on FAIs, including what the Crown’s view is and what improvements can be secured, before we align ourselves with a proposition for a new system. Going to the Crown and establishing the FAI approach is the first base for us in pursuing the issue.

It is important to hear Gill Imery’s view on all this, because she was a compelling witness and has done a huge amount of work on the matter, but we also need to hear from the Government on whether she is being invited to continue in her role. If Gill Imery has been asked to do that, she can tell us, but we need confirmation from the cabinet secretary.

On Pauline McNeill’s point about information on the fatalities in Scottish prisons, I have a recollection that we saw some of that data from either Gill Imery or the Scottish Prison Service. It is important to understand the circumstances and the context. There will be different circumstances surrounding deaths in custody. Some of those deaths will be because of suicide and some will be because of health issues. However, the management of those health issues is important to ensure that prisoners are being properly supported with the healthcare that they require when they are incarcerated. That is a fundamental commitment in relation to prisoners’ human rights. It is important that we are assured that, in relation to both of those very different situations, individuals’ wellbeing is supported to try to avoid circumstances in which people take their own lives or to ensure that prisoners are getting proper access to the healthcare to which they are entitled.

Those issues lie at the heart of the work that Gill Imery has been looking at. I agree with colleagues that she was a very strong and compelling witness in explaining the work that she has tried to do.

I do not question the fact that more needs to be done. I would encourage some clarity on whether Gill Imery is being invited to stay on in post, because the work is not yet complete. However, I take a different view of the letters from the cabinet secretary, the chief executive of NHS Scotland and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. The letters demonstrate that work is under way here. There might not be as much as the committee would like, or as Gill Imery would like, but work is under way. There is a clear commitment to taking the agenda forward, although it might not be moving as fast as everybody would like. For that reason, it is important that Gill Imery is able to continue her work.

My last point is that an issue that arises here but also crosses over into other areas of responsibility is the approach to fatal accident inquiries. We can ask the Government for information on certain points in that regard, but fundamentally we need to hear from the Crown about those questions. As part of our response to the material, we should put some of the points to the Crown and ask for a response.

I take it that those provisions are built into the contract at the point of negotiation.

The nuance that I am trying to get across is whether the skills that Police Scotland requires for the policing challenge of today are best served by a discussion about the number of police officers that we have available to us.