" class="left_link">» Text HereThis 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 June 2007 - August 2008".
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 Justice Committee began its Stage 2 consideration of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill this week, and they passed a raft of amendments on the sentencing aspects of the Bill which significantly changed the content and nature of this piece of legislation. In the chamber there were a number of justice related questions to the First Minister.
The Justice Committee
Stage 2 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill
The Justice Committee began considering stage 2 amendments to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill at its meeting on Tuesday. As expected, there have been a very significant number of amendments lodged, which if agreed to, would significantly change the nature of this piece of legislation.
Unusually, there have also been a number of amendments lodged in Stage 2 which concern issues which did not appear in the Bill at all in Stage 1. These include two amendments on stalking, one lodged by Rhoda Grant (Lab), and another by the Government; amendments on minimum sentences for carrying a blade or knife, lodged by Richard Baker (Lab), and an amendment on Mr Baker’s amendment lodged by committee convenor Bill Aitken (Con); and there are a range of amendments concerning prostitution related offences, which have been lodged by Trish Godman (Lab), Margo MacDonald (Ind), and the Government. The Committee agreed to consider further written and oral evidence on these amendments given that they have so far not been considered in relation to this Bill. They also discussed the possibility that this would mean that the completion of Stage 2 would be delayed.
See their call for written evidence on Stage 2
The Committee then continued to consider the amendments which had already been tabled for that day, which concerned sections 1 of the Bill on sentencing. They were joined by Richard Baker (Labour’s justice spokesperson), and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Purposes and principles of sentencing
There were a collection of amendments which alter or remove entirely, the parts of the Bill which set to enshrine the ‘purposes and principles’ of sentencing in statute. This amendments were lodged by Robert Brown (LD) who argued that including these in statute would make the law unnecessarily rigid and lead to unintended consequences. The committee agreed a range of amendments which modified this section of the bill, and then they voted an amendment which removed it all together.
The following is a summary of the amendments they discussed:
- Amendment 26 — making ‘fairness and justice’ the overriding purposes of sentencing. This was voted against, on the casting vote of the convener.
- Amendment 27 — making the other purposes of sentencing in section 1 non–inclusive, which Robert Brown (LD) said would guard against unintended consequences or omissions. This was also voted against, on the casting vote of the convener.
- Amendment 28 — would introduce the principle of proportionality to sentencing in legislation. This was voted against 7 – 1.
- Amendment 29 — would make courts have to have regard to the nature and character of the crime, not only its seriousness. This was also voted against 7 – 1.
- Amendment 32 — the sentencing of women with children would have to take account the children when passing sentence. This was voted against 5 –3.
- Amendment 33 — would apply the purposes of sentencing to those under 18. This was agreed to without division.
- Amendment 38 — would remove the whole of section 1, which enshrine the purposes and principles in statute, from the bill. This was agreed to by 5 – 3.
Relationship between section 1 and other law
These amendments concerned the sentencing principles (although no longer in the Bill), and the proposed sentencing council. Although debating these amendments was somewhat redundant given the previous amendments passed, Robert Brown wished to proceed anyway, saying that these issues can be tidied up at Stage 3.
- Amendment 39 — would make the sentencing council follow the purposes and principles of sentencing as laid out in section 1. Although no longer contained in the bill, Robert Brown said that this would now relate to common law. This was voted against 7 – 1.
- Amendment 40 — would remove this section of the Bill altogether. This was agreed to 5 – 3.
The Scottish Sentencing Council
Amongst this group of amendments were several seeking to make the council operate with a judicial majority, and to make the composition of the board be agreed by judiciary and not Ministers. There were also a raft of amendments which essentially recast it as an ‘advisory body’ that will prepare sentencing guidelines for endorsement by the High Court.
- Amendment 12 — would ensure that sheriffs and justices of the peace were guaranteed representation on the council. This was agreed to 5 – 3.
- Amendment 13 — would remove the constable from the council’s membership
- Amendment 14 — would reduce the number of lay members on the council to just one. This was agreed to on the casting vote of the convener.
- Amendment 41 — would mean that in addition to the Lord Justice Clerk and one other High Court judge, one of the judicial members must be a sheriff, and one member must also be a justice of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate. This was agreed to without division.
- Amendment 47 — would move the constable from the list of legal members of the sentencing council to the list of lay members.
- Amendment 49 — would mean that any appointments are made with the approval of the Lord Justice General (currently, Ministers make appointments in consultation with the Lord Justice General. This was agreed to 5 – 3.
- Amendment 53 — would meant that the sentencing council’s guidelines would have to be approved by the High Court before they came into effect. This was agreed to 4 –1 with 3 abstentions.
- Amendment 16 — would change the approval process for sentencing guidelines and require them to be approved by the Lord Justice General, which in effect would make the sentencing council an advisory body. This amendment was pre–empted
- Amendment 18 — if there were any differences in opinion in the board on sentencing guidelines between Lord Justice General and the sentencing council, then the Lord Justice General would have the final say.
- Amendment 52 — would make the council have to consider the effectiveness of imprisonment and non-custodial sentences when drawing up guidelines. This was disagreed 1 – 4 with 3 abstentions.
You can read the debate on these amendments in the Official Report. You can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV
The Health and Sports Committee
Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill
The committee took evidence from: the Salvation Army; Children 1st; Aberlour Child Care Trust; Youthlink Scotland; the National Union of Students in Scotland; British Medical Association Scotland; Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems; UK Faculty of Public Health Medicine; Alcohol Focus Scotland; and the Scottish Association for Mental Health. You can access the committee’s home page http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/hs/index.htm where the oral evidence will shortly be available.
The Chamber
First Minister’s Questions
Decision to release the Lockerbie bomber
Richard Simpson (Lab) said that many relatives of those who were killed in Lockerbie continue to be distressed at the Government’s decision to release Mr al–Megrahi, and he accused the Cabinet Secretary of showing no regret about any aspect of the government’s handing of the case, not least given that the released prisoner is still alive in Libya. The First Minister replied that he supported the Cabinet Secretary’s decision, and he quoted the UK Foreign Secretary who said that British interests would have been damaged if Mr Al–Megrahi had died in a Scottish prison.
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Sex offender disclosure scheme
Robert Brown (LD) asked the Government about its decision to roll out the sex offender disclosure scheme which is being trialled in Tayside, months before the pilot is due to finish and before the evaluation has been carried out. He said that although the pilot had showed success so far, this area of the law was complex and the proposed legislation could mean that innocent people would be scapegoated. The First Minister replied that the pilot has showed considerable success since it was introduced last September, and that the evidence to date should allay any fears regarding civil liberties that Members may have. You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also read about this story in press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written Questions
There was a question about the anti–social behaviour legislation and landlords, about domestic abuse and short custodial sentences, and about the best treatment for drug and alcohol dependency . There was a question about drug use reported in the crime and justice surveys, about the existing law for stalking, about the number of assaults on police and finally, about outstanding human rights cases against the SPS.
Posted by KM on Tue 9th Mar 2010 at 8:38 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Page 1 of 136 pages 1 2 3 > Last »