Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
This part of the site is a weekly review of criminal justice business at Holyrood starting, in its present format, from September 2006. The page is supported by a grant awarded by the Clarke Foundation for Legal Education and is written by our Parliament correspondent, Katrina Morrison.
New: "Handy guide to criminal justice in the Scottish Parliament September 2008 - July 2009".
Glossary: 'Law Officers' = the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. 'SPICe' = Scottish Parliament Information Centre
It is possible to view Committee business on the 'Holyrood. TV' archive for up to a month following the date of the meeting.
The main event in Parliament last week was the Justice Secretary’s evidence to the Justice Committee as part of the inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset Al–Megrahi. There was also a good debate about domestic violence to mark the global ‘16 days’ campaign, and a private members debate about the detention of children in the Dungavel.
The Justice Committee
Inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset al–Megrahi
Most of the Committee’s meeting was spent taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and his officials as part of their inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset Al–Megrahi. The Committee decided to launch this inquiry in an attempt for the Parliament to hold the Government (and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in particular) to account for this decision.
The remit of the inquiry is restricted to the processes that were followed in considering the application for compassionate release, and the application by the Libyan Government for the transfer of the prisoner under the UK — Libya prisoner transfer agreement.
MacAskill first answered questions about the consideration of the two applications, and he said that even though the application for the prisoner transfer came six weeks before the application for compassionate release, once the two applications had been made, there was some logic in dealing with both applications at the same time. And although the original purpose of the meeting with Mr Al–Megrahi in Greenock Prison had been to discuss the prisoner transfer application, both applications were therefore discussed. He was asked whether Mr al–Megrahi was influenced to lodge another application on the basis that it was likely that the initial application for prisoner transfer would be rejected, and he replied that this was not the case given that the application for prison transfer was made by the Libyan Government, not by Mr al–Megrahi and the application for compassionate release was made by Mr al–Megrahi.
He also answered questions about Mr al–Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal, and he explained that the application of prisoner transfer, although lodged by the Libyan Government, could only proceed if there were no outstanding issues and the prisoner decided to drop his appeal, and he said that the decision on whether to do this or not was one for Mr al–Megrahi alone. He was asked about stories in the press which say that his colleague Christine Grahame (SNP), who has long campaigned for Mr al–Megrahi’s release, had seen emails which allude to the fact that pressure had been put on the prisoner to drop the appeal, but the Secretary said he had no knowledge of these emails and he reiterated that Mr al–Megrahi’s own lawyer and the Libyan Government both deny that any such pressure was exerted.
He was also asked about his decision to visit Mr al–Megrahi in prison. Cathy Craigie (Lab) argued that this was not necessary, given that the guidance was only that he was allowed to ‘make representations’, and this did not have to be in person. However, the Cabinet Secretary said that he had been obliged to make the offer under the regulations of the prisoner transfer agreement and that once the prisoner had indicated that he wished to make representations in person, the Cabinet Secretary was therefore obliged to visit him, as it would not have been possible to transport the prisoner to visit the Secretary in Saint Andrew’s house or elsewhere. He also argued that the Government were acting in this way so as to avoid the possibility of being sued for not following appropriate procedure, and he repeatedly pointed out that the solicitor who was representing Mr al–Megrahi was the same lawyer to took the Sommerville slopping out case to court, which cost the Scottish Government millions of pounds in compensation payments.
Committee convener Bill Aitken (Con) also argued that the prisoner could have been visited by one of the Government officials rather than the Secretary himself. The Cabinet Secretary argued that because the victims had been given the chance to make representations to the Government directly, albeit via videolink, so the prisoner should also be given the opportunity to make representations direct. He argued that this situation was analogous with the rights of the accused in a court of law.
The prisoner transfer application was refused because the victims’ families who lived in the US made it clear they had been assured that the prisoner would serve the remainder of his sentence in the UK. He said that when he sought further information from the UK Government on this matter, they refused to comment, which meant he had no choice but to believe the relatives. The Committee expressed regret that the documentation that the US Government sent to the Scottish Government could not be published.
There were also questions about the health advive that was given to the Government regarding the three month prognosis.
The Secretary was also asked about whether the Government had considered any other options for where the prisoner could be released, apart from his repatriation to Libya. He explained the high cost of providing security to Mr al–Megrahi and his family. In comments widely picked up by the media the next day, he also disclosed that Mr al–Megrahi had been wearing bullet proofed amour on his journey to the airplane to take him back to Libya. He also said that it would have been inappropriate for the prisoner to be held in a hospice or hospital in Scotland, given the high media attention that would have pervaded the place.
The Committee wanted to find out more about where any possible threat to Mr al–Megrahi’s safety came from, but the Secretary was reluctant to divulge this, saying that he had not pressed the police or intelligent services to tell him. He was berated for not investigating further whether or not there were other places that he could have returned to, but the Secretary pointed out that no other prisoner who had been released under compassionate release had been freed to a place other than their home.The decision whether or not to release on compassionate grounds was then discussed. The Government’s legal official who prepared the advice on compassionate release for the Cabinet Secretary, came under tough questions from Robert Brown (LD) for not emphasizing the victims’ views on possible compassionate release, when they had been included in the guidance relating to prisoner transfer. Mr Askill was questioned further about whether he considered the “heinousness of the offence” for which Mr al–Megrahi was found guilty, sufficiently in his decision, and whether there would ever be an occasion in which the offences was so bad that the decision to release on compassionate grounds would not be taken. The Secretary said he did not expect the victims to forgive or for their pain to heal, but that he had made this decision on the basis of how he saw the values that are upheld in Scotland, which are about forgiveness, and that there is no crime which is too severe to not be forgiven. He also said that it was a matter of “great regret” that the Libyan Government reneged on their promise not to release Mr al–Megrahi amidst scenes of celebrations, and he rejected that had he got these assurances on paper rather than verbally this would have made any difference.
The Committee will decide next week whether they wish to continue with their inquiry and seek further evidence, or whether they are satisfied on the basis of what they have heard. They will also have a chance to decide whether it wishes to report to the Parliament on this issue.
You can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
The Chamber
Debate on Violence against Women
On Wednesday there was a debate in the Chamber to mark the annual global ‘16 days’ campaign, which draws attention to violence against women worldwide. The speech was led by the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil, who spoke about the 16 days campaign and the white ribbon which was being worn by many Members in support of it. He spoke about the recently published statistics which showed that more than 1,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported to Scottish police every week in the year 2008–09, and the fact that only 55% of those incidents went on to be reported as a crime. He quoted from one of the organisers of the white ribbon campaign who said that if this level of violence were between countries, it would be called war, but when it happens to women, it’s just an every day affair.
The Minister spoke about the effect of domestic abuse on young people, and the allocation of funding over a three year period to ensure that children have access to dedicated domestic abuse workers. The massive increase in domestic abuse that is reported around Old Firm matches was also spoken about, and the Minister said that as a result of closer working between the Government, the police and a range of other stakeholders, additional resources have been provided for the time around these matches, and he said that at the time of the latest game, there was a 28% reduction in incidents of domestic violence reported.
There were some interventions about female on female domestic violence, and about domestic violence against men, and the Minister said that as a result of an informal cross–party group, the Government would hold a debate on this issue in the new year. However, Marlyn Glen (Lab), urged the Chamber to retain a gendered analysis of domestic violence which sees violence against women as part of men’s power of women in society.
Johann Lamont spoke next for Labour, and she said that although the fact that the Parliament had reached a consensus about significance of the problem of violence against women, it was nonetheless crucial not to settle for a ‘cosy coming together’, but rather to reflect on the critical issues that still needed to be addressed. She said that Saint Andrew had died encouraging a women to stand up to her abusive husband, and that his ‘gentle manliness” should be our inspiration.
She wanted information from the Minister about the implementation of single outcome agreements (SAOs), which she argued were crucial in order to make sure that provision is being delivered and to a consistent standard. She highlighted recent analysis conducted by Scottish Women’s Aid on SAOs, which she said showed that different councils prioritised the domestic violence differently, if at all, and she argued that it is often subsumed into a more generalised community safety agenda. She also spoke out about the Government’s plans to end sentences of six months and under, saying that there was a need to deter men by marking domestic abuse as a significant offence, and that time for a violent partner in custody can give a woman respite and also space for her to make a life-changing decision and to be supported in the process. She therefore called on the Government to clarify whether cases of domestic abuse would be included in any presumption against short sentences. She echoed points made earlier about the need for this issue to be viewed not just as incidents of violence, but as taking place in the context of the power of men over women in society. She also called on the Minister to clarify comments he made to the press that one explanation for the recent rise in cases of domestic abuse was that there was an economic recession, arguing that this perpetuated the view that violence was caused or excused by poverty.
Bill Aitken spoke next for the Conservative party, and he also highlighted the recently published figures, saying that one of the saddest parts of them were the number of repeat offenders which had increased by 39% in comparison with the previous year’s figures, and he said that it was sadder still to think that there are even more cases that go unreported to the police in the first place. He said that domestic violence affects not only the current generation but also the future generation of Scotland, as children who have grown up in domestic abusive households are likely to suffer long term trauma and also be more likely to be violent themselves, an argument that was disputed by Johann Lomont during an intervention. He said that the dedicated domestic violence court which has been established in Glasgow, should be considered in other parts of Scotland as well, and that one of the biggest attractions of such a court was that it had the power to issue appropriate disposals.
Robert Brown spoke next for the Liberal Democrats. He said that it was difficult to get a sense of trends when looking at figures, because it was impossible to know whether the increase in the recently announced figures was due to increased likeliness to report crimes, or if it mirrored an actual rise in crimes. And while he agreed that much of the violence is rightly viewed as gender based, he queried whether this was universally the case as factors such as drugs, alcohol, and the pressures of an economic turndown do also affect abuse, although they naturally are not an excuse. He also agreed with Bill Aitken to an extent, by saying that children who grow up in households in which violence is normal, there is a higher risk that this violence will continue when they become adults.
He said that there was a need for a cultural shift, which would mean that domestic violence is known for what it is, namely a crime as bad as or worse than other violent crimes. He was not alone in mentioning the effect of the local government concordat and the reduction in ring fencing, saying that it was not acceptable that essential local services are cut as a result of changes to bureaucracy. He also called on the domestic abuse court to be rolled out nationally, and lastly, he also spoke about the issue of women who come from abroad often as part of an arranged marriage, and are threatened and disempowered when they get here.
During the debate that followed, single outcome agreements were spoken about, with some Members saying that each outcome should be subject to an equality impact assessment, in order to protect services. Rhoda Grant (Lab) spoke about the consultation she has just launched on a member’s bill to improve the protection that is given to victims of domestic abuse. The proposed bill would give automatic access to non–means–tested legal aid for anyone looking for an injunction with powers of arrest to protect them from abuse; would introduce a provision that a breach of such an injunction would become a criminal offence, punishable with a prison term; and lastly, would provide an easier access to non–harassment orders by removing the requirement to show a course of conduct.
Christine Grahame (SNP), who is the Convenor of the Health and Sports Committee, the lead Committee on the Alcohol Bill, spoke about the role that the misuse of alcohol in domestic abuse, emphasising again that alcohol was an exacerbating factor in domestic violence and not the cause. Members spoke about the events that were taking place across the globe to mark the ‘16 days campaign’, and about their experiences helping constituents who have been the victim of domestic abuse. Marlyn Glen (Lab) argued that prostitution and pornography were part of the range of violence against women, and the joint “Safer Lives: Changed Lives”, published by the Scottish Government and CoSLA was also spoken about. Sandra White (SNP) said that much of current music and videos in popular culture talks about women disrespectfully and there can be little hope of boys growing up to respect women if the music they listen to refers to women as ‘bitches and whores’.
In his summing up speech, the Minister referred to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill on extreme pornography, and he said that the Government would be happy to support Rhoda Grant’s Bill if the consultation showed that it was needed. In relation to the issue of sentencing and sentences of under 6 months, he said that this was being considered in the context of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and that when the sentencing council is established, this could be one of the areas that it considered. He also said that the Government would support the Conservative motion that the domestic abuse court should be rolled out throughout Scotland where practicable.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Debate on the detention of children at Dungavel
Later that afternoon, there was a private members debate about the detention of children in the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre, which holds asylum seekers prior to being deported. This debate was led by Sandra White (SNP), who used it as an opportunity to press for more political action to end what she called the “shameful and immoral” practices of holding children in camps such as this one. She referred to figures received from the UK Border Agency which showed that between October 2008 and September 2009, 103 children were detained at Dungavel in Scotland, and 884 children were detained at Yarl’s Wood in England. She said that despite the best intentions of both the previous and this Administration to stop the detention of children at the camp in Scotland, the practice continued and showed no sign of stopping. Ms White said that last year’s commitment to limit the detention of children in Scotland to a maximum of 72 hours was encouraging at the time, but all it has meant is that children are now being held for a maximum of 72 hours and then transferred to Yarl’s Wood in England after that period has expired. She also said that the Home Office is actively directing MSPs and MPs not to intervene with cases as it can halt the deportation process. She spoke movingly about the conditions inside the camp calling them barbaric, and she said that it was unforgivable that children who have often witnessed horrors such as the torture of their own family are locked up in what to all extents and purposes is a prison, when they in the UK.
An open debate followed, where all Members spoke out against the detention of children in Dungavel. This was an issue which fostered near cross–party support, although some Nationalist Members where perhaps more vocal than others at being frustrated that jurisdiction for this issue lies in Westminster. The pilot that is being run by Glasgow City Council which provides houses for families to live prior to being deported, was welcomed by all, but recognised as not being successful in stopping child detention in Dungavel.
If you want to read the whole debate, you can do so in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Questions
There were written questions this week about a potential cross-border traffic increase resulting from a minimum price for alcohol, if there is a single public agency who are responsible for ensuring that intoxicated people are not a risk to themselves or others, and what the age ranges of those caught handling offensive weapons . There was a question about the waiting list for drug and alcohol treatment, an interesting question about the average fine for possessing various drugs over the past 10 years was and a question about how many migrants from other EU states are serving a custodial sentence in Scotland. There was a question about whether the Government are committed to central government funding for additional police officers beyond the current parliamentary session, and finally, about how many individuals have disputed information from a criminal record check carried out by Disclosure Scotland since 2002
Posted by KM on Tue 8th Dec 2009 at 2:15 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Page 3 of 122 pages « First < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »