Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
This was another busy week for justice in the Parliament. The Justice Committee continued its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, this week hearing from ACPOS, Victim Support, and several children’s organisations. And in the Chamber, the Justice Secretary made a statement to Parliament about the escape from the open estate, which was pursued further by Opposition parties during First Minister’s Questions. The Chamber also held a debate praising the Cashback to Communities scheme.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill at Stage 1
After last week’s lengthy and interesting meeting in Alloa, this week the Committee were back in the Parliament again to continue with their scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Committee have so far focused on Part 1 of the Bill only, which relates to proposals for the sentencing council, minimum sentences and community payback orders. Today’s meeting focused on other criminal law and procedural provisions in the bill.
The first panel was comprised of Chief Constable Stephen House of Strathclyde Police and Chief Constable David Strang of Lothian and Borders Police, who were both representing ACPOS, and Gordon Meldrum, director general of the SCDEA.
They spoke about the provisions in the Bill relating to serious and organised crime, saying that they will enable the targeting of so called ‘Mr and Mrs Bigs’ who are involved in orchestrating large scale criminal activities such as people or drugs trafficking. Mr Meldrum said that it was traditionally difficult to prosecute these figures and that when a prosecution did take place it was usually for a conspiracy charge rather than anything more serious. He said that the provisions in the bill which would create the specific offences of ‘being involved in and directing serious organised crime’, would make prosecutions easier.
The witnesses were also asked about the definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ contained in the Bill, which is a “crime involving two or more persons acting together for the principal purpose of committing or conspiring to commit a serious offence or a series of serious offences”. The Committee considered this definition too broad, and pointed out that by classifying a ‘serious offence’ as an indictable offence, a large number of not very serious offences could be prosecuted as well under this legislation.
The witnesses said that to have a tighter definition may be counter productive, because serious and organised crime is varied and always evolves, and criminals may exploit the situation to ensure that their activity does not fall within the strict definition in statute.
They also spoke in favour of the parts of the Bill which would make it an offence to ‘have knowledge’ about organised crime, saying this was different to ‘being involved’ in organised crime. They rejected suggestions from the Committee that these provisions would give the State extensive powers to pursue those who the legislation was not intended for, saying that there is a need for these powers given that there is a difficulty prosecuting those who facilitate the business side of organised crime.
The witnesses also spoke about the Bill’s provisions on DNA data retention, and ACPOS said they would prefer for these provisions to include the ability to take DNA from those issued with fixed penalty notices as well. The Committee entered into a debate about the philosophical rationales for and against blanket DNA retention, with the police favouring such an approach, and many of the Committee members expressing concerns
The next panel of witnesses comprised of witnesses from Victim Support Scotland. They spoke favourably about a proposed sentencing council, saying there was an urgent need for public confidence and transparency in sentencing. They argued that if this could be achieved, it would make people more willing to participate in the criminal justice system and greatly improve the experience for witnesses. They also said that what victims want is not necessary for a harsher sentence to be handed out, rather they want for the crime to not be committed again.
They also spoke in favour of the Community Payback Orders (CPOs) which the Bill would create as the new single community sentence, and they said that, although the option to sentence to six months or less should be retained, a greater use of CPOs should be encouraged as long as a suitable alternative disposals were available. The witnesses said that victims often assume that prisoners will receive support to tackle offending behaviour when serving short sentences, and will then often feel let down once they realise this is not the case, and that many victims would be in favour of some sort of payback work to be carried out by the prisoner.
They proposed an interesting suggestion that when the court was handing out a CPO, the sentencer could at the same time say what the custodial equivalent was, and they also said that community sentences should not begin before the treatment or activity attached to them was available. They said there was a need for community orders to be ‘sold’ to the public, so they could see what was in it for them, and that there was a great opportunity to link them to work identified by community planning partnerships in their area
The final panel of witnesses were from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children 1st, and Children in Scotland. They were asked about the provisions in the Bill relating to children and young people, which retains the criminalisation of children under between 8 and 12, although it now provides that they will not be prosecuted. The witnesses roundly criticised the fact the Bill did not go further and raise both the age of criminal responsibility and the age of criminal prosecution to at least 12. One of the witnesses urged raising the age of responsibility to 16, not 12, pointing out that the UN still state that the age of 12 is “not considered to be internationally acceptable”.
The witnesses were keen to emphasise that they were not advocating that nothing be done with children who exhibit offending behaviour, rather that the response must be non-criminal, and they advocated creating a new non-offence grounds of referral to the Children’s Hearings System.
They also spoke about the provisions in the Bill which will allow the DNA of children dealt with by the CHS to be retained. The witnesses all disagreed with this provision, saying that children should be treated differently from adults, and that the connection with juvenile and adult offending is not straightforward or inevitable. One witness said that in some exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to retain DNA from a child, but that this should only be done following an order from a Sheriff.
You can read all the evidence from this Committee meeting in the Official Report and watch it on Holyrood.TV
You can also read all the accompanying written evidence from today’s witnesses, in pages 4 – 41 of the meeting papers
The Chamber
Statement on open prison abscond
Last Wednesday, Kenny MacAskill appeared before a Parliament which was baying for blood following rumours of votes of no confidence in the Justice Secretary in the wake of the second escape from an open prison in as many weeks. Both absconders had been returned to custody, but the political knives were out for the Mr MacAskill as the Opposition attempt to tarnish in his legitimacy as the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill makes its way through Parliament.
No doubt aware of this, Mr MacAskill said he was making this speech due to ‘considerable public concern’ over the case, however, he reminded the Chamber that the changes that were made to open prisons in the wake of the Robert Foye case have significantly reduced the number of escapes in the past year. He nonetheless was forced to admitted that one of the new procedures created as part of that review, (that if a prisoner had previously absconded from an open prison they should not be eligible for return to the open estate), had not been followed by the SPS in this instance, because the prisoner in question had previously absconded, albeit 22 years ago. He said this appeared to be due to a “failure in its information-sharing processes”.
He said that he has appointed Professor Alex Spencer to conduct an independent review of the circumstances surrounding this case, and he reiterated that there was a need for a well run open prison estate within the Scottish penal system.
During the questions that followed, Richard Baker (Lab) said that it should be unacceptable for the Cabinet Secretary to blame his civil servants for a mistake of this kind, and that if Professor Spencer’s report does uncover failings in the SPS, Mr MacAskill ought to take responsibility for them. Bill Aitken (Con), urged him to take a more ‘hands-on approach’ to the running of prisons in general and in the transfer to the open estate in particular, and he argued that the buck for this escape must ultimately stop with the Cabinet Secretary. Robert Brown (LD) acknowledged the role that the open estate plays within the prison system, but wanted reassurances that the “wrong people” are not sent there. In reply to all these questions, the Cabinet Secretary reiterated that the Government awaited the independent report into the matter, and would take on board any issues that it raised.
You can read this statement and the questions that followed in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the considerable press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Cashback to communities debate
The next day, the Cabinet Secretary was up once again before the Parliament, although this time in the more comfortable position of talking about the Cashback to Communities scheme. This scheme was set up in January 2008, with the aim of reinvesting the money seized from the Proceeds of Crime Act back into projects and activities for young people, who the Government have said need more ‘choices and chances’ to ‘help them keep away from crime and the antisocial behaviour of those who stray’.
The Cabinet Secretary said that the majority of young people do not stray, but simply require more activities to keep them out of trouble, and he said that £13 million has so far been committed to the scheme which has set up sports and arts activities across Scotland, as well as a range of other youth work. He also spoke about the process of recovering the funds from criminals, and he paid tribute to the work carried out by the Crown Office in this regard, and he said that funding is being distributed in a way that encourages community participation and networks to be developed. He outlined the various sporting projects that have been established and he announced additional funding to YouthLink Scotland to continue to fund and create projects for young people.
Richard Baker (Lab) emphasised the fact that the Proceeds of Crime Act had been established under the previous Administration, and he urged the Government to not take full credit for it, pointing out the numerous press releases they have issued in the past 18 months which celebrate its success. He nonetheless also praised the scheme, although he said that the funding should be more keenly focused on the communities who are the victims of crime. He also queried the introduction of an incentivisation for police, whereby they would be able to keep a proportion of the money that is seized, saying that it was important the amount they claimed was not too large and that money continue to be invested in the communities who need it.
Robert Brown (LD) suggested that if there was money ‘left over’ from seizures under the Act, then this could perhaps be used to fund the community court in Glasgow, over which there has been so much political disagreement and debate. He spoke about the value of diversionary approaches to crime and antisocial behaviour, saying that these approaches were far and away more successful than other measures such as short prison sentences or policies aimed at deterrence. He called for the money seized to be spent more specifically on projects which will divert young people from crime, and also for it to be distributed evenly throughout Scotland.
Bill Aitken for the Conservatives agreed with Robert Brown that young people often get into trouble when they have nothing to do, and he said there was a need to ensure there were enough activities for young people, given that these have decreased over the years. Although he very much welcomed the Proceeds of Crime Act, he said that efforts had to be made to ‘step up the game’ in order to increase seizures. He also said that a particular effort had to be made to target drug dealers, which set a bad example to young people who often look up to them as folk heroes.
During the open speeches that followed, members from across the Chamber welcomed the Cashback scheme and the legislation which made it possible. Labour members were eager to highlight the fact it was created under their watch, and many members either highlighted projects in their area which have benefited from funding, or highlighted cases in which schemes had tried to secure funding but not been successful. The Minister for Community Safety managed to ruffle some feathers in his closing speech, by praising a scheme which provides football for boys and jewellery making and sexual health advice for girls, who come along to watch the boys play football. All in all however, it was a good natured debate, and if you want to read the full transcripts you can do so in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Questions
Victims Commissioner
Margaret Curren (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary whether he would support her colleague David Stewart’s proposal for a victim’s commissioner. She said that despite the reforms brought in under the Vulnerable Witnesses Act 2004, the Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence Act 2002, and a range of other initiatives, many victims continued to believe that the court system did not work in their favour. The Justice Secretary replied that he was prepared to consider the issue and he was due to have a meeting with Mr Stewart to discuss it further. He said that it would require resources however, and that it was ultimately up to the Parliament to decide if money should be spent on a commissioner or on frontline services
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Open Prison Escape
The Chamber was in an unruly mood for FMQs, when the issue of the open prison escape arose again. This follows the Justice Secretary’s statement to the house on the matter the previous day, in which he explained that the prisoner in question should not have been transferred to the open estate in the first place (see above for more details)
Iain Gray led the pack, saying the issue was not so much that a prisoner had absconded, rather it was ‘the manner’ in which the Justice Secretary had handled the issue, which he said ‘reeked of complacency’. He said that Mr MacAskill‘s claim the prisoner transfer to the open escape was due to a ‘glitch’ n the system was unacceptable. He said this was just another in a long list of failures of the Secretary, and that the First Minister should sack him now. Alex Salmon reiterated that the point that the number of escapes from the open escape have fallen considerably under this Administration, and he mocked an interview that Iain Gray had conducted in which he ‘welcomed’ this decrease. This was a particularly unruly exchange, with the Presiding Officer having to step in and tell the rest of the Chamber to be quiet, showing that politics in Scotland is not finished with the Justice Secretary just yet. You can read this question in the Official Report
Automatic Early Release
Annabel Goldie for the Conservatives was next up to attack the SNP’s justice policies, this time her focus was on automatic early release. She said that the prisoner who escaped from open prison was sentenced to ten years in custody, but was moved to an open prison after three years. She also reiterated the points that Iain Gray had made about the Justice Secretary and called on the First Minister to reshuffle the cabinet and ‘put an end to soft touch Scotland’. The First Minister reminded the Chamber that it has been the Conservatives who had introduced automatic early release (ignoring Ms Goldie’s point that they have since attempted to repeal it on several occasions, only be defeated by Labour and the SNP), and he also reminded the Chamber that the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill plans to end automatic early release. You can read this question in the Official Report, and also watch both these questions, along with all the other FMQs, on Holyrood.TV
Point of order – Parliamentary notice about open prison escape
At the very end of the day, news of a further escape from open prison had been released to the press and hence also to the opposition. It had also emerged that the Cabinet Secretary and therefore the First Minister must have been aware of this escape during the exchanges at First Minister’s questions (see above). This point was raised by both Iain Gray and Bill Aitken at the end of the day during a ‘point of order’. The Presiding Officer told them both that he was unable to rule on the veracity of what members say, and that if they wanted a statement from Government on the matter, they would have to make this request via the Parliamentary Bureau which organises the Parliamentary schedule. The First Minister told the Chamber that the release of this sort of information was an operational matter for Tayside police, and that it would be ‘extraordinary’ if any politician were to over ride that.
You can read this brief exchange in the Official Report
Written Questions
There was a question about the anti-social behaviour legislation, in relation to making it applicable to holiday lets, and a question about the number of times the Lord Advocate has exercised the right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences. There was a question about how many arrests for drug-related offences have been made in the Lothian and Borders police force area in the last 10 years, and a range of justice questions about diversion from prosecution figures and treatment for HIV prisoners. There was a question about sentences for drug dealing, about the procedures and figures for recruiting police, and about the operational capacity of young offenders institutions. There was a question about the numbers of young people in custody, and further questions about the number of young people proceeded against in court
Posted by KM
on Thu 4th Jun 2009
at 10:32 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend