MSPs last night agreed to back the general principles of high court reform legislation by 112 votes to 0, despite widespread concerns about some of its controversial proposals, including tagging reluctant
witnesses.
At the first reading of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, MSPs gave cross-party support to its overall aims but questioned many of its specific measures.
The bill, which aims to improve the speed and efficacy of the high court system, was generally welcomed by the justice 1 committee earlier this month but its report expressed grave concerns about specific proposals, including plans to hold trials in the absence of the accused and to tag witnesses.
Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, yesterday defended the plans to overhaul the system, including the most controversial proposals criticised by the committee. She said they were ''designed around the needs of the law-abiding many, not for the law-breaking few''.
In the first full parliamentary debate on the bill, she said: ''I am well aware that our plans to allow trials to take place when the accused is absent have been controversial. But I believe they are an important element in helping us to rebalance the system in favour of victims. By agreeing the principles of this bill, parliament will take a vital step forward in delivering a justice system fit for the twenty-first century.''
The bill, which is based on the recommendations of high court judge Lord Bonomy, proposes earlier disclosure of evidence between Crown and defence, extended powers for sheriffs, new preliminary hearings ahead of trials, and an extension of the 110-day custody time limit for commencing high court trials to 140 days.
Ms Jamieson said provisions to increase sheriffs' custodial sentencing powers from three to five years would start in the spring as planned. She said it was necessary to tag witnesses who deliberately refused to attend court because otherwise they would have to be jailed.
However, a number of MSPs questioned the details of the bill and called for the minister to ensure amendments were made at the second reading.
Michael Matheson, the SNP deputy justice spokesman, questioned the executive's approach to ensuring earlier disclosure of evidence between Crown and defence and its commitment to scrapping the 110-day rule.
On trials held in the absence of the accused, he said: ''The majority of evidence heard on this proposal was opposed to it, including from lord justice general Lord Cullen, so I would hope the minister would reconsider this proposal at stage two.''
Margaret Mitchell, Tory deputy justice spokeswoman, said her party supported all the recommendations except the change to the 110-day rule.
''This, we believe, would delay justice unnecessarily, as we are firmly of the opinion that the case has not been made to justify the ditching of this rule which has existed for centuries and which has become a
cornerstone of the Scottish criminal justice system,'' she said.
Pauline McNeill, convener of the justice 1 committee, said she was ''really concerned'' about the impact on the workload on sheriff courts of taking on a large number of less serious high court cases. She said early disclosure was key to the bill's success, and called for stronger mechanisms to ensure this principle was adhered to as set out in Lord Bonomy's report.
Margaret Smith, the LibDem justice spokeswoman, and her party colleague Mike Pringle, suggested that increasing the additional sentence penalty available for those who ''did a runner'', currently two years, might prove more effective.
Ms Smith told the Labour justice ministers the committee felt ''important principles were at stake'' and that the accused would not get a fair trial. ''We were also convinced, having taken evidence from legal practitioners, that this proposal is not workable. However, we saw some merit in allowing the trial to continue when all the evidence has been led,'' she said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article