Chamber and committees

Yes, there is a big difference. Most people would agree with the premise that the ability for witnesses not to be in the same room as the accused has been beneficial in many cases, such as the examples that you listed, including the protection of vulnerable witnesses, especially in domestic abuse cases. However, to be fair, that ability existed before the pandemic.

I want to follow up on a point that the convener made, which you picked up on. You said that, overall, the feedback—admittedly from sheriffs—had been positive, but you also mentioned defence. We have heard quite the opposite. I will quote a point that was made by a representative of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, which the convener raised earlier. They said:

“I can say—on behalf of the vast majority of the profession, I think—that the experience has ... been nothing but a resounding failure.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 2 March 2022; c 13.]

That is quite a stark comment to make to the Criminal Justice Committee. Do you simply disagree with that assertion or will you agree to disagree with it?

The big difference is that we are moving from a system of application where, if all parties agree to it, the trial can proceed as a virtual trial. From members’ lines of questioning, it sounds as though there has been a relatively low volume of cases, so it is difficult to see what effect the move to virtual trials has had on outcomes, which is the key point.

Katy Clark made the point that it might be prudent to perform a much wider pilot involving a larger volume of virtual trials to see what the outcome of that would be. The bill proposes to make virtual trials the default, which would mean that people would have to apply for a trial not to be virtual, which represents a complete reversal of the current situation. The key point is that what is proposed is not an extension of, but a big change from, what we are currently doing.

Please give me a second, convener—I was expecting to ask questions on early release, but I will do it in that order.

I do not have a huge amount to ask about time limits, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary has already listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed on the issue. In the previous evidence session, I reiterated the need for limits to be extended to ensure that cases do not expire or time out in any way. No one wants that to happen. However, there is concern about the length of time and the possibility that, because of the backlog, the limits might be permanent rather than temporary. Why might you need a long-term power to extend time limits, given that the proposed limits go way beyond anything ever experienced in the Scottish legal system and, in some cases, beyond international norms, standards and laws?

So you deem the power to be proportionate. When will it expire? Will it be in 2025, as set out in the sunset clause?

I will maybe continue with Mr Purdie, as he has all the figures. My apologies to the cabinet secretary for not jotting down the figure earlier but I am glad to get an updated number.

How does that figure compare to the number of cases in wider society? Can you contain cases more easily in a prison environment or is it more difficult, due to the nature of the estate?

What effect has any relaxation of some of the restrictions that were needed during the temporary Covid measures—such as those around visitation or people being out on licence or temporary release—had on the relativity of the case rate versus the population? Are we seeing a marked proportionate increase in the positivity rate as a result of the relaxation of some of those restrictions?

Thank you, convener. I would be happy to come back in later with other questions.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned that you had read or listened to a number of our evidence sessions. As other members have alluded to, there is a difference of opinion on the success or otherwise of virtual trials. I want to clarify the difference between the Government’s proposals on the on-going ability for people to give evidence virtually—which I think has been found to be helpful and beneficial for witnesses and specialists, as well as for the most vulnerable in specific cases—and trials being done completely virtually. We have heard that very few such trials have been done, so we do not really know what effect they have.

I will pose the same question that I posed to the previous panel. Would it not be more prudent to conduct a much wider pilot of virtual trials before we embed in legislation any permanency to such trials?

We understand the concept of increasing time limits so that cases do not time out. That is entirely appropriate and it would be difficult to argue against it. However, increasing time limits has a substantial impact on both parties—victims and accused, and, in particular, accused who are held on remand.

Other than not allowing cases to time out, what possible justification is there for extending case time limits? Is that the only suitable reason?

On a technical level, therefore, the provisions are an extension of temporary powers. Is that extension time limited or permanent?

Why do you need to have the power in future?

I thank the Government for its briefing, albeit it was not easy trying to digest 18 pages overnight, given the technicalities of the problem.

I want to get my head around the bigger picture. During last week’s statement, we did not have a lot of time to go into detail, due to pressures on chamber time. This is a great setting in which to do that. Is 1,317 the maximum number of cases that have had a wrong risk assessment as a result of information technology glitches, or could there be more cases and you need to do further work to find that out and how far back the problem goes?