Tough questioning for Lord Advocate and Crown Agent as they appear before the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee

Lord Advocate James Wolffe - Image credit: Scottish Parliament TV

The Lord Advocate and Crown Agent faced tough questioning as they appeared before Holyrood’s justice committee this week.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe and Crown Agent David Harvie were challenged on a range of issues including staffing levels and morale, care of victims, centralised case marking, cancellation of court cases and case backlog.

The committee has been examining the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and this was the first time the Lord Advocate had appeared to give evidence in the final session of the inquiry.

RELATED CONTENT

MSPs to review Scotland's prosecution service

Justice secretary to be questioned on resourcing of police in Scotland

Scotland needs a wider debate over environmental justice

Evidence has already been taken from a number of witnesses, including Justice Secretary Michael Matheson, HM Chief Inspector of Prosecution in Scotland Michelle Macleod, JPs, Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Social Work Scotland, COPFS employees and unions, lawyers, environmentalists and victim support groups.

Some members of the committee took issue with a written submission (COPFS) in response to the inquiry.

Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands Douglas Ross commented: I read the submission very carefully and was disappointed to see that a large bulk of what was submitted by the Crown Agent and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service basically said that the evidence that the committee had received was wrong and that there was no real concern.

“If that is the response to the evidence that has been heard over the five months of the inquiry, I worry whether—depending on what the Justice Committee puts in our report—anything will change or whether you will just be determined to say that small things can be tweaked but there will be no overhaul of the justice system of the kind that witness after witness has said is required.”

Committee convener Margaret Mitchell also took up the same point. She said: “In three places, I have written the phrases “Very good”, “Listening” and “Definitely taking on board”, but my initial reaction to the submission was that a lot of the evidence had not been taken on board. You might be hearing what is said, but are you really listening?”

However, Harvie clarified that this was not what was intended and the response was to indicate that work was already ongoing in many of the areas.

“The letter was intended to serve multiple purposes. First of all—and far from Mr Ross’s characterisation of our not accepting the need for significant change—I highlight on the second page that there is a strong argument for changing the system in its entirety.

“What I am advocating—the Lord Advocate supports this idea, and you have heard evidence from others on it—is that a significant contributor to the difficulties that have been identified not only by the committee but by other professionals in the system relates to that system issue, so there is a need and an opportunity for transformational change.

“That is what I was trying to communicate. It is not about things staying the same as before, but about acknowledging the challenge and trying to approach it in a different way.”

She also mentioned the level of adjournments and the pressure they were putting on staff workload, to which the Solicitor General explained that rather than  shortages, 80 per cent in summary court were due to a key witness not turning up on the day.

On the subject of victims, referring to the recently published report by former solicitor general Lesley Thomson, the Lord Advocate noted: “The former solicitor general’s review shows how far we have come in a remarkably short time—starting as recently as 2000—in how we deal with victims.

“Within my professional lifetime, we had a criminal justice system that paid no regard to the special needs and particular importance of victims.

“In the scheme of things, we have come a remarkable distance in a short time.”

However, he continued later: “We should not underestimate the difficulty for many vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime of the process of giving evidence and having that evidence tested, as it might entirely properly have to be.

“It is right that as a system we look at what can be done to allow that process to take place in a way that, as far as possible, does not re-traumatise the individual or exacerbate the impact of the original crime.”