Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
This was a busy week for Justice business in Parliament. The Equal Opportunities Committee continued with their inquiry into Females in the Criminal Justice System, and the Justice Committee heard from the Judicial Appointments Board, and also discussed subordinate legislation concerning court reform and the Somerville judgement with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. In the Chamber, there was a Conservative led debate about Community Courts, and there were also questions for the Law and Justice Officers.
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Female offenders in the Justice System Inquiry
Last week the Equal Opportunities Committee held its third session of oral evidence in relation to its inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. This inquiry was established to: “assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re–offending.”.
Previous meetings have examined the social characteristics of female prisoners, and the sorts of facilities and programmes available to them in the justice system. This meeting was focusing on whether the support available in prison to help prevent re–entry into the criminal justice system was adequate and effective, and whether specific groups of female prisoners require different interventions
The first panel before the Committee comprised of the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons, Andrew McLellan, and Sue Brookes, who is in charge of Offender Strategy in the SPS.
The witnesses spoke about the difficulty of providing throughcare to prisoners serving short sentences, because it can be difficult to collect information during their brief time in custody, and they are not entitled to statutory supervision following release. Dr McLellan spoke very favourably about the Routes Out Of Prison programme, saying this was by far the most successful programme he had seen for supporting prisoners after release, although still in its early days. Ms Brookes said that the effect of overcrowding on female offenders is more damaging even than it is for the male prison population, chiefly because of the amount of support that the female prisoners require from staff, and she said that conditions in Cornton Vale have eroded due to the population increase over recent years.
Dr McLellan was also critical of the recent decision by the SPS to house all female offenders in Cornton Vale, no longer allowing any prisoners to be located in wings attached to other prisons throughout the country. He said that the majority of these prisoners were serving very short sentences or were on remand, meaning they would not access the programmes that are available in Cornton Vale anyway, and the closure of the old units has lead to further overcrowding in Cornton Vale. There were also some interesting discussions about what causes female offending, and the witnesses commented on previous evidence submitted to the Committee which said that it was important to recognise women’s agency in their offending and not to see them only as victims. Ms Brookes said that it was important to treat female prisoners as adults who made choices whilst at the same time recognising that their offending often arises out of difficulties in relationships stemming from experience of abuse. Dr McLellan said that one hardly ever meets a prisoner who is not poor, a woman prisoner who is not an addict, a woman prisoner who is not afraid, or a prisoner who has been loved and cherished. They also answered questions about the sorts of rehabilitation programmes that would best benefit female prisoners, and how much emphasise should be put on parenting and relationship skills.
The next panel of witnesses was comprised of Provost Pat Reid, from Cornton Vale over–21s visiting committee; Jim Scott, chairman of Cornton Vale under–21s visiting committee; Dr Nancy Loucks, chief executive of Families Outside; and Dr Willie Black, who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist with the Forensic Network.
The speakers from the Cornton Vale visiting committee spoke of the need for different approaches for younger and older prisoners, saying that the younger prisoners are less likely to pursue help that is available to them than older ones are, and they said that many of the younger prisoner especially require much more basic life skills such as how to cook and look after themselves.
Dr Loucks spoke about the difficulty of maintaining contact with family members, especially for female prisoners who are held in a central prison, often far away from their families. She said that around half of all prisoners loose touch with their families when they are in custody, which is bound to impact on rates of reoffending, given that, for women especially, keeping the family together is a big motivation to stay out of prison. She was also very critical of the visiting facilities in Cornton Vale, and she said that the prison visitor centres, which are purpose built facilities which make the visiting experience for families much easier and helps them to access resources, should be expanded to every prison. She also spoke about the need for the impact on prisoner’s children to be taken into account during the sentencing process, and she said her organisation were examining how such a scheme could operate, perhaps running alongside the existing social inquiry reports.
Dr Black spoke about the difficulty of gathering information from health boards across Scotland for prisoners in Cornton Vale, and he also said that given that these women’s lives are often erratic and they are likely to miss medical appointments following release, it would be desirable if the ‘one missed appointment and you are out’ rule could be relaxed for ex prisoners, though he thought this would be unlikely to happen.
There were also some interesting discussions about the value of short prison sentences, and whether community sentences could deal with the range of issues that female offenders present.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV You can also access all the material so far received on the Inquiry Homepage
The Justice Committee
Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
The Committee were joined by the chairman and the secretary of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and two Board members, to give evidence on the Board’s work over the past year.
The main areas of questioning related to how their work is expected to change with the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, now that they have become a statutory body. They said that the Act has ‘crisped up’ the things that they have already been doing, including the duty to appoint on the basis of merit and character; the duty to examine candidates’ knowledge, skills and competence; and the duty to take account of and promote diversity. A Committee member noted previous criticisms of the Board that they did not gather information from further enough a field, and he wanted to know how the Board were working towards creating an objective system for making appointments that was not based on who the candidate happened to know.
The chairman of the Board said that they seek examples of evidence of a candidate’s work and comments from people who have worked with them, so they are able to understand how they would tackle certain issues. They said this approach was not so much about asking exam questions which have a right or wrong answer, so much as finding out how a candidate’s mind works, what sources of information they use, and what thinking processes they employ. They will also look at written work and gather information from people who engaged with the candidate, and on occasion they may also have a process in which they are asked to comment on a case study in a discussion–type interview with the Board.
The Board said they made 20 recommendations to the all–Scotland floating sheriff slate last year, for which they had received over 100 applicants.
They witnesses also spoke about encouraging diversity amongst the judiciary, and it was noted from the outset that they are not starting from the best position, given that there are only 2 female members on their Board of 10. Notwithstanding this, the witnesses spoke about what they are doing to encourage more women, and they said that they have recently issued a questionnaire to the senior legal profession in Scotland, so they are better able to make sure they are communicating well with potential candidates and making sure their processes do not deter any groups from considering making an application.
You can read all the evidence relating to this part of the meeting in the Official Report. You can also read the helpful SPICe briefing about the Judicial Appointments Board in pages 4 – 12 of the Committee Papers
Subordinate Legislation
Scotland Act 1998 modification in response to Somerville case loophole
The Committee were next joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice who spoke in relation to the issues highlighted by the prisoner compensation claims and the Somerville case. He sought to move an order which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 which would enable the Scottish Government to legislate to establish a one–year time bar for bringing human rights claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the normal time bar that applies to the Human Rights Act, but due to an anomaly in the drafting of the Scotland Act, the Scottish Parliament has been so far unable to do so, meaning they have been paying compensation for cases of slopping out which precede the usual one year prior to application. Agreement was secured between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in March this year to rectify this situation, but the Scottish Government requires an order to be passed by the Committee before the they can legislate.
The Committee had received correspondence from the Law Society of Scotland prior to this meeting, in which they said it was ‘unfortunate’ the Scottish Government had not consulted more widely on this issues, given that it will ‘limit the capacity of people who may have had their human rights infringed from being able to claim compensation for having their rights violated’. They also questioned whether the one year time bar was appropriate for compensation cases of this kind.
In response to this criticism, the Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government had to act expeditiously, and that once they had agreement with the UK Government, they chose to act immediately rather than ‘compound the agony that is caused in many communities by people receiving money while they are serving sentences’. He said that, although it was not be the norm to act without further consultation, the Government felt they had the right to protect the broader public interest. Regarding the one year time bar, he said this was applied simply because it is the period that usually applies in the Human Rights Act 1998, and is considered the norm in such matters.
After further discussions, the Committee agreed the Order, which will now clear the way for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to establish a one year time bar.
You can read the transcripts of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the SPICe briefing relating to the Somerville judgement in pages 14 – 18 of the Committee Papers You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) Order 2009
The final item of business for the Committee related to provisions in relation to the establishment of justice of the peace courts. These reforms to the administration of summary justice flow from the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, and seek to rationalise the operations of the lower courts in Scotland. They have been criticised by several MSPs for closing district courts their constituencies, and the Committee were today joined by another two such MSPs, Elaine Murray (Lab) and Cathy Jamieson (Lab), who opposed the closures of the Annan and Cumnock district courts.
The Justice Minister remained with the Committee to speak in favour of these closures, and he justified these reforms together with his officials, saying that the decision to close these courts and move their business to other court houses were based not only on financial grounds, but also account of the facilities in existing court houses such as custody arrangements, secure access, interview room and places for witnesses. Both Elaine Murray and Cathy Jamieson summed up their positions at the end of questions, arguing that this move towards centralisation is not necessary and defeats one of the principles of justice which is that it should be accessible to all, and that justice should be seen to be done in the communities in which offences were alleged to have been committed. The Committee were convinced by their arguments, and at the end of the meeting, the Government were defeated.
You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and read Elaine Murray’s letter against the court closures in pages 19 – 25 of the Committee Papers
You can also watch the whole meeting on Holyrood.TV
The Chamber
Community Courts Debate
On Thursday, Bill Aitken (Con) led a debate in the Chamber about Community Courts, prompted by the recent decision not proceed with the pilot community court in Glasgow on cost grounds.
Bill Aitken declared that his party was in favour of fewer people in prisons, although this should be achieved by reducing crime, not by sentencing proportionally fewer people to custody. He spoke about the Community Courts that operate in New York, which he has visited twice and admires. He said that these courts were predicated on speedy and effective justice, so offenders will come before the courts within 24 hours, and then if a guilty plea is tendered the sentence is immediate. He said that in New York community service was not seen as a soft option and that this court system had been copied across the world.
He went on to argue that it was therefore a matter of profound regret that the decision had been taken to not proceed with the Community Court in Glasgow, and he argued that the Government could very easily decide to afford the court if it wished. He compared this situation with what currently occurs in Scotland, saying that fines are not paid, direct measures are ignored, and the level of breaches of probation orders and community services is unacceptable, and he urged the Government to reconsider its decision on the Glasgow Community Court.
The Minister for Community Safety spoke next for the Government, and he argued that the point was not so much the physical building of a Community Court but how the services work together. He agreed that beginning a community sentence swiftly after sentence is to be aimed for, but he argued that setting up a project which would cost around £3.73 million at the outset followed by around £750 000 a year, was neither justified nor necessary for meeting this aim.
Richard Baker spoke for Labour and he also spoke favourably about the New York courts and lamented the decision to abandon the court in Glasgow, an idea which he said had begun under the previous Executive. He decried the Government’s work on community service, saying that at a time when they are seeking to increase the numbers of prisoners servicing community sentences three fold, they are only increasing the funding for these by 20 %, and at the same time also cutting funding to agencies such as SACRO. He echoed points made by Bill Aitken that money could be found, saying for example that the SPS has made around £4 million worth of VAT savings in the past year that could be used.
For the Liberal Democrats, Robert Brown said this issues goes to the heart of whether the Government were serious about their criminal justice reform, which the Liberal Democrats broadly support. He said that if the Glasgow community court pilot went ahead, it would slash crime rates dramatically, along with improving the quality of life for communities and helping to salvage the lives of many offenders whose lives are currently wasted. He called the decision to reverse the court deplorable and he also said that the Government has kept an ‘independent business plan in favour of the court, out of the public domain, and he called for it to be made public.
During the open debate claims about projected costs, budgets and the current economic climate were aired, and the responsibility for the decision not proceed with the court, was also discussed.
At the end of the debate, the Government were roundly defeated, with no other parties joining them in the final vote. This vote was non–binding however, meaning it carries no real implications other to publicly raise the issue, and to embarrass the Government.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the stories surrounding the Community Court in Glasgow on the CJScotland Newsblog
First Minister’s Questions
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
Elaine Murray (Lab) asked the First Minister to comment the recent developments surrounding the potential return of the man convicted for the Lockerbie by bombing to Libya. The First Minister replied that the decision on whether or not to grant Libya’s request would be taken on judicial grounds alone and not economic or political grounds.
You can read this question in the Official Report, and read the stories in the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
The Road to Recovery
John Lamont asked what the Government were doing to incorporate their ‘Road to Recovery’ drugs strategy into prisons drugs strategy, and in particular whether the Government had any plans to create drugs free wings in prisons. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that he had recently visited HMP Edinburgh where an addiction support area had been developed in which treatment and support are offered to prisoners who are motivated to change. During a supplementary question from Dr Simpson, he also praised the Bath Street initiative in Glasgow, which diverts female offenders from custody whose main offence or problem involves drugs.
Policing Tactics
There was a question from Patrick Harvie about the tactics used for policing large public events. Mr Harvie said that recent weeks had shown that police frequently deploy ‘‘pretty shoddy tactics’ which have been going on for years, but which are only now being picked up because of the proliferation of recording technology amongst the public. Kenny MacAskill replied that the Scottish Police strike the right balance between protecting the right to non–violent protest and the right of the public to go about their daily lives without disruption.
Paid Police Informants
Ross Finnie (LD) asked whether the Government welcomed the Scottish Information Commissioner’s decision to compel Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police to release information on how much they spend on covert human intelligence sources. This comes in light of the stories in the press about Strathclyde Police’s attempt to recruit informants from the protest group Plane Stupid. The Cabinet Secretary replied that paid informants play an important part in addressing crime and public disorder, and it was appropriate that funding be given to enable the police to continue these activities. Read the related stories in the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and short–term holiday lets
Sarah Boyack (Lab) asked a question about anti–social behaviour orders given to those who are staying in short–term holiday homes. She said there was an urgent need to review the legislation to ensure that it applied to these sorts of accommodation, given the strain that is being put on local residents and is also resulting in serious health and safety concerns. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that the current legislation is probably sufficient to deal with what is a comparatively small problem. He said that most of these complaints stem from hen or stag parties, and that Edinburgh City Council were also of the view that the existing legislation was sufficient.
Drug Addiction Services
Jamie McGrigor (Con) asked the Government about recent data which shows that 25% of addicts who want treatment have to wait for more than a year until they are assessed, and more than 30% have to wait for more than a year until they are actually treated. The Minister replied that this was indeed too long, and that was why the Government had substantially increased the funding for drug addiction services
You can read all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Official Report, and watch them on Holyrood.TV
Written Questions
This week there were questions about the sale of alcohol to underage customers, whether changes to legal aid will affect whether historic cases of child abuse or not, and about moneys seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act. There were a series of questions relating to prosecuting domestic abuse, and questions about arresting people who have consumed drugs, and about research into whether the mandatory drug testing of arrestees should be rolled out. There was a question about the number of prosecutions for drug trafficking over the past five years, and a number of Justice questions including the topics of the community court, the right to protest, and funding for community service orders. There were a number of questions about services available to victims of crime. There were a number of questions about armed response units, about racist incidents in prison, and about the correct response to youth crime
Posted by KM
on Wed 13th May 2009
at 7:11 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend