Chamber and committees

My arithmetic is not great but, of the further 10 cases,

“2 have proceeded, one was deserted and 3 were converted to a physical trial.”

That leaves four. What happened to them?

That would be useful—thank you.

I have just one more question; I know that other members have questions. It is about remote attendance by vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases. How does the system that is used now compare with what happened before the pandemic? We heard from Victim Support Scotland and Women’s Aid that witnesses find remote attendance a lot less intimidating, because it means that there is no face-to-face contact with alleged perpetrators, and that they are very much in favour of it. What are your thoughts on how the process has changed?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that we have heard support for, and concerns about, the greater use of virtual options—there are mixed views on the subject. Some of those concerns are around the fact that it can prevent effective communication between legal representatives and their clients, impede the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and discriminate against people who do not have access to digital technology. What are your thoughts on that? Are those concerns being addressed?

Do you see it as a problem that concerns are being expressed by one side of the legal profession as opposed to the other? We have heard quite opposing views. Is it possible to bridge the gap between the views of defence lawyers, with their traditional practices, and people in the court service who think that the approach gives them a useful tool to clear the backlog and address the needs of domestic abuse victims and vulnerable witnesses, which is very much favoured by third sector organisations?

I will ask a couple of questions about virtual trials, although my colleagues have more.

I thank you for your helpful letter, Mr Fraser. I have a few questions arising from it. On the Aberdeen domestic abuse pilots, you say that

“at the start of January 2022 a further 10 cases were scheduled for trial of which 2 have proceeded, one was deserted and 3 were converted to a physical trial.”

What were the reasons for converting those cases to physical trials?

Who makes the decision to convert?

I just want to get a general understanding of how the process works. Did that pilot go according to plan, as it were? Was it successful?

Do you see that continuing?

Thank you.

My questions were very much along the same lines as those that Katy Clark asked on purposeful activity and exercise, and the cabinet secretary has answered most of them. However, I note that the briefing from Teresa Medhurst shows the differences between the prison estates, and they seem to relate to staff and staff absences. Perhaps Mr Purdie can confirm that on the record. Secondly, has any thought been given to drafting in retired prison officers to cover situations temporarily so that more activity can be done?