Alison McInnes: Scots law is not safe in the hands of the SNP

As the Scottish Parliament continues to debate the removal of corroboration from our legal system, I thought it would be a good idea to publish Alison McInnes MSP's speech to Scottish Liberal Democrat conference in September which gives a good summary of the arguments why this may not be a good idea. Alison is as committed as I am to ensuring justice for victims of domestic and sexual assault, but she doesn't think that removing corroboration will help.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to move this motion today.

A number of key principles must always underpin any justice system.

·         It must be impartial.

·         It must be proportionate.

·         And it must be fair.

Corroboration is the requirement that each crucial fact in a criminal case – namely that a crime was committed and by the accused - must be supported by two different, but mutually enforcing, pieces of evidence.

Now, ours is the only criminal justice system in Europe to require corroboration. So why should we be precious about it?

For hundreds of years, since the foundations of our Scots law were laid, it has been established that that no individual should be convicted of a crime based on the testimony of a single witness.

But I don’t defend it because of tradition.

Rather, I defend it because it protects against miscarriages of justice. The fact is that the word of one person, regardless of their status or perceived character, is not enough.  Similarly, a sole piece of forensic evidence should not be enough to convict.

You cannot remove this pillar of our justice system, without making the whole structure unstable.

In other jurisdictions, in the absence of a corroboration rule, there are a whole series of checks and balances to protect against wrongful conviction.   

For example, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have

·         greater regulation of police investigations.

·         Preliminary hearings to test the quality of evidence.

·         Judges have the power to exclude poor quality or prejudicial evidence.

·         Unanimous verdicts are required in the first instance.

·         And there are wider grounds for appeal following a verdict that could be deemed unsafe.

We do not have any of these necessary safeguards.

But the SNP intends to remove corroboration without ensuring that there are sufficient alternative safeguards in the trial process to give that protection.

Indeed taken with their other reforms – changes to double jeopardy and proposals on the admissibility of evidence of bad character or previous convictions, and we should be very worried. This is a profound change – sweeping aside centuries of well-established Scottish legal practice.

Conference, Scots Law is not safe in the hands of the Scottish National Party.

In Scotland the Crown prosecutes in the public interest. We must guard against any shift towards prosecuting in the victim’s interest. That would be at odds with our fundamental liberal belief in the need for a robust, transparent and independent justice system.

We need to defend the principle of the presumption of innocence and safeguard against false accusation, wrongful conviction and miscarriages of justice.

The SNP’s proposals will mean that someone could be convicted on the basis of the testimony of just one person, even if five of the fifteen jurors believe that they are innocent.

Witnesses can be honest yet mistaken. Their evidence persuasive but wrong.

And, unfortunately, witnesses do sometimes lie to the police and in court- out of earnest to ensure that the accused is convicted, because of the strength of their convictions or through spite.

I am concerned that scrapping corroboration could mean that false accusations could become more common. The Law Society of Scotland warns that trials could be reduced to “a contest between two competing statements on oath”.

Corroboration should not be seen as a cumbersome requirement that blocks cases being taken to trial.

It does not simply deliver a quantity of evidence. It is ensures the quality of it. It reinforces facts. It confirms facts. It is a way to test the reliability and credibility of evidence. It is key to determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused.

We cannot allow trials to hinge on lesser evidence. Wrongful convictions bring the law into disrepute. Justice Scotland has said the removal of corroboration will risk “justice being undone”.

The SNP claim that corroboration is a barrier to justice, particularly for those victims of sexual crimes.  But the research they rely on is scant - a cursory desk top study carried out by the Crown Office. In the absence of clear in-depth evidence, it would be reckless to proceed in blind hope.

Now, Conference, I am sure that you will agree with me that conviction rates for rape remain stubbornly low.

Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly share the aspiration to improve conviction rates.  No one should be beyond the reach of our justice system. We must strive to ensure that the victims of rape, sexual assaults and domestic abuse receive the justice they deserve.

There are a number of ways to tackle that – for example a much more rigorous approach to the gathering of forensic evidence, and we could examine the idea of rape victims being represented by a lawyer in the court, something that happens in Belgium. 

However, contrary to the SNP’s claim, there is a real danger that scrapping corroboration could actually reduce the chances of victims of these crimes securing justice.

We might get more cases into court, but there is no evidence that we would secure any more convictions. The alleged victim could face a much more aggressive cross examination in the absence of supporting evidence. Juries are less likely to convict on the say so of one piece of evidence. More acquittals or not proven verdicts in these cases will not help anyone.

There’s a long list of those who warn against losing this vital safeguard.

·         The Senators of the College of Justice.

·         The Law Society of Scotland.

·         The Faculty of Advocates.

·         Justice Scotland.

·         The Scottish Human Rights Commission

The Justice Secretary would be foolish to ignore all those voices.

Like you, I am proud to say that I joined the Liberal Democrats because I believe in a just, free and fair society.

It is therefore a privilege to be my party’s justice spokesperson, to have the opportunity to champion these values, and to lead the fight against a succession of ill-considered and botched reforms from Kenny MacAskill and the SNP.

In the face of their dogged desire to centralise services, increase ministerial control, and push reforms through without hesitation or due consideration, we need strong liberal voices at Holyrood and across Scotland.

They abolished our local police forces. They are closing our local courts.  And now, through the Criminal Justice Bill, they want to get rid of corroboration.

We are on a slippery slope, not to independence but to injustice. 

If our justice system fails to uphold the right to a fair trial then it also fails to serve victims of crime. It fails to serve Scotland.

I urge members to join me in voting for this motion. Join me in sending a message to the SNP that it cannot cut corners when it is dealing with those issues that matter most to us as Liberal Democrats - justice, freedom and fairness.

Liberal Democrat McInnes' loses bid to secure prisoners a vote in the independence referendum

Scotland's referendum on independence next year is, we hope, a once in a lifetime event. If Scotland votes for independence, there is no going back. It's a huge decision.

We know from Alex Salmond's tussle with some UK Supreme Court judges a couple of years ago that the SNP don't care much for human rights of prisoners. Rather than being mortified at being found in breach, they decided to pick a fight with London because that's what they do.

To a liberal mind, prison is about rehabilitation, about getting the inmates' life in order, adding to their skills so that they can go out and contribute to society. Our justice system falls way short of that. So those in prison don't always get the support they need during and after their sentences.  So it's not surprising that so many of them end up back in and out of the place.

SNP, Labour and Conservative MSPs today ganged up to stop the Parliamentary Committee discussing the Referendum Franchise Bill from suggesting an amendment which would have given prisoners serving short sentences the right to vote. She had earlier explained why she wanted the measure so much:

The independence referendum is unlike any democratic decision Scotland has had to make before. Where a general election dictates a country’s direction for the next four years, this decision could steer Scotland’s path for the next three hundred years. 

It seems disproportionate to deny someone serving a short sentence a say in the future of their country. It seems nonsensical and arbitrary that someone sentenced in the summer will be shut out of this decision whilst someone caught in the spring will be allowed to vote.

Crimes must be punished. Our justice system must be seen to be effective and be effective. But if we want a prison system which rehabilitates offenders and helps them to become responsible citizens, it seems cruelly unforgiving to shut short term offenders out of a decision which could have repercussions on their life long after release.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will be putting these amendments before the Referendum Bill Committee with the hope of encouraging sensible debate from members. The UK is already out of step with the rest of Western Europe on this issue. On the biggest decision we will take in 300 years Scottish Liberal Democrats are clear that this is a reasonable, responsible and proportionate step to take.

After the vote, where she was backed by the Greens, she said she would try again to get the amendment through at Stage 3.

It's just a shame that the other parties can't see that to deny offenders on short sentences a say in the future of our country is unfair. If Scotland votes for independence that would affect not only the prisoner, but every generation of his or her family to come.

It may not be fashionable to stand up for the rights of prisoners, but it's the right thing to do and I'm very proud of Alison for so doing. Mind you, when she's up against a government who didn't care when the Prisons Inspector gave them a right rollocking over its neglect of women prisoners, she was always unlikely to win this one.

Should sex offenders be given lie detector tests?

There is probably no less popular group of people in this country than sex offenders. That's unsurprising, and you certainly won't find me with anything nice to say about them. They are, however, human beings and as such have a right to be treated in a fair and just way by the authorities, the same as you or I. Why? Because once you start picking and choosing who gets human rights and who doesn't, life gets very nasty. Like the old poem says, if you don't stand up when the rights of others are violated, there won't be anyone to stand up for you.

That's why I feel deeply uneasy that lie detector tests have in the first place been used on sex offenders living in the community in England and that the apparently successful pilot has been extended.

Why exactly does it scare me so much?

First of all, how do we actually know that the results are accurate? This USA Today article confirms pretty much what I feared, that the results are open to subjective interpretation. If you hooked me up to one of these machines and started asking me questions that were designed to trip me up, and I didn't trust you, you can bet your life I'd look like I was lying even if I was reading nursery rhymes. You bet I'd be feeling anxious. So, if someone "failed", would they be sent back to prison on a false premise. We should be very concerned about people's liberty being taken away unnecessarily.

Second, if we're going to rely on lie detector tests, do we then not become a bit lazier about evidence. Forgive me, but I don't have a whole load of confidence in the US judicial or penal system. This monitoring of sex offenders by polygraph is an idea that comes from there and I inherently distrust it.

Thirdly, there's the slippery slope argument. If this is such a success who next? Terror suspects? Immigrants? Schoolkids returning from a period of absence? Benefit claimants?

Fourthly, success is apparently being determined by the fact that more offenders 'fess up to doing things they shouldn't to their probation officers. Or, to be more accurate, things that they already have done.Can you see where I'm going here? The potentially dangerous moment has passed. Somebody could already have been hurt. Surely, if we want the public to be safe, we need to be thinking about better psychological support and better rehabilitation for these offenders so that the breaches of licence are less likely to happen in the first place?

What do you think about this? Does anyone have any words of reassurance for me on a civil liberties front? Frankly, I'd be surprised, but I'd be interested to hear if there are any liberal arguments in favour of such a scheme.

We should all just shut up about Bill Walker and let things take their course

Innocent until proven guilty. One of the fundamental cornerstones of our legal system.

Bill Walker, MSP for Dunfermline West, has been arrested and charged in connection with allegations of domestic abuse.

What's important now is that the justice system should be allowed to take its course and while it does, we should all keep our traps shut.

That includes Labour MP Thomas Docherty and  MSP Jackie Baillie who have today called for Walker to resign. It's completely inappropriate and Docherty himself has a cheek. In 2010, when he stood in Dunfermline, he faced charges of careless driving from which he was later cleared. It wouldn't have occurred to anyone at the time to call for his resignation as candidate solely on the basis of being charged. Maybe he should treat people with the respect with which he was treated.

Jackie Baillie is trying to bring Nicola Sturgeon into it as well, saying that her office was told of the allegations long before the election. As far as I'm aware, the person didn't speak directly to Nicola and this seems to be more to do with political mischief making than anything else.

On a personal level, I have absolutely no time for Bill Walker at all. I think, however, that we should all refrain from talking about the case and any potential charges until the legal process has been completed. It's only fair. Jackie Baillie and Thomas Docherty should know that.

Willie Rennie calls for enquiry into Lockerbie prosecution

Willie Rennie used his slot at First Minister's Questions yesterday to call for an enquiry into the way the Lockerbie prosecution was carried out. I think this is very sensible given the six concerns raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Governments are not very good at admitting to their mistakes - and most especially, justice systems are amongst the worst offenders. People can be deprived of their liberty for crimes they didn't commit. It doesn't happen very often, but when it does, and when concerns are raised about the validity of prosecutions, it's really important that they are held to account. We've all seen cases where it's gone wrong - the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four.

With the Lockerbie prosecution, so much doubt remains over things like a break in at Heathrow where the luggage from Flight 103 was in transit, queries over the identification of Megrahi by the Malta shopkeeper and other things.

We need to be sure that the Crown Office and the Police did everything they should have done and if they didn't, there needs to be consequences and change.

What was interesting about their exchange yesterday is that Salmond was quite serious in his response. There was none of his usual bluster and point scoring and he actually answered the question:

Willie Rennie: The First Minister will have seen the open letter from 40 leading figures that calls for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. The group made it clear that it wants a Scottish inquiry, whether or not there is an appeal.

The Scottish Government’s Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds for appeal, including the conduct of the Crown Office, withheld evidence and doubt about identification.

The First Minister has said that he would be prepared to co-operate with a United Kingdom inquiry. If he has no objection in principle to an inquiry, will he agree to hold the Scottish inquiry that the group wants?




The First Minister: The place where an individual’s guilt or innocence is determined is a court of law. As Willie Rennie should know, the relatives of Mr al-Megrahi have the ability, if they so choose, to go back to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and seek further leave to appeal. That is the process that can be followed. The Parliament would do well to take the view that a court of law is not just the best place but the only place to determine guilt or innocence.

Willie Rennie described the SCCRC’s report. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is part and parcel of the Scottish judicial system. It exists to provide checks and balances in the system. It is right and proper for the SCCRC to refer cases back to the court of appeal, if it thinks that there is reason to do so. That does not automatically mean that cases will be successful on appeal—we should look at the record to see that.

Mr Rennie should in fairness note that, now that we have the full detail of the SCCRC report—as he knows, I campaigned for years to have it published—we can see that the forensic trail that led to Malta and Libya was upheld in the SCCRC’s exhaustive review. That is not always clear in the reporting about the report.


Willie Rennie: This is not just about guilt or innocence; it is also about the conduct of the Crown Office. Surely, a liberal society should be prepared to look hard at its justice system, even if it is worried about what it might find. Whether or not that is determined surely cannot be left in the hands of a family somewhere in Tripoli. If the First Minister chose to act on the inquiry, he would have the support of Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, John Pilger and many others.

This is not a normal case; it is Scotland’s biggest terrorist atrocity. These are serious questions that have been raised by serious people, and the world is watching. Will the First Minister act?


The First Minister: I have no axe to grind as far as the Crown Office of 10 years ago is concerned. This Government was not in office then. There is no reason for me to be unreasonably protective of law officers, the Lord Advocate and members of the Crown Office from that time. However, the basis on which we must proceed is to see whether the appeals are exhausted within the system. It is not something that we can shrug aside and say that it should not be up to the family of Mr al-Megrahi whether they want to go back to the SCCRC. That is the process of Scots law. That is what the SCCRC is there to do. 

Given the exhaustive nature of the SCCRC report, the evidence that it compiled and the witness statements that it took over a period of years, we have every reason to suppose that it will do its job properly, as it clearly has done before. 

I ask Mr Rennie to remember that the SCCRC is part and parcel of our judicial system. It is not something that is outside the judicial system. The SCCRC is part of the judicial system.

The people whom Mr Rennie cited genuinely believe that Mr al-Megrahi was innocent. That is why they are arguing that case. The place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. Other people who want an inquiry into Lockerbie are not looking for an inquiry into the points in the SCCRC report; they are looking for an inquiry into the ultimate responsibility for Lockerbie. That touches on matters of huge international import, and it would be beyond the ability of a Scottish inquiry to summon witnesses and compel evidence and so on in that context. That is why we have said, clearly, that we would co-operate with any such inquiry. However, if an application to determine the guilt or innocence of Mr al-Megrahi comes forward, that is a matter for the SCCRC, which is an independent body, and that is the process by which things can be properly pursued.


I don't think an investigation into the conduct of our prosecuting services should be dependent on whether Megrahi's family decides to appeal. If they have done things wrong, it's important for all of us to identify weaknesses in the system. After all, you might find yourself charged with something you hadn't done one day. You would want to be confident that you could expect a fair trial.


Willie said:

“A liberal society should be one that is prepared to look hard at its justice system, even if it is worried about what it might find.

 “I have called for a Scottish public inquiry into the Lockerbie prosecution. “The First Minister has the opportunity to shine a light onto the conduct of the Crown Office, which for years has been left blemished by the six separate grounds of appeal identified by the Government's own Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. “On matters which relate to the integrity, fairness and justice of the Scottish justice system, it is simply not good enough to leave this to a family in Tripoli.
"An inquiry into Scottish justice is not a matter to be left to a UK inquiry. It has the backing of 40 leading figures, is about Scotland's biggest terrorist atrocity and potential flaws have been identified by the Government's own review body. We need the First Minister to act."

Why do I feel uneasy about cameras covering court sentencing?

It's been decided that the sentencing of Suzanne Pilley's murderer, David Gilroy, will be filmed and the footage released to the media in the interests of openness and transparency.

This is something that's been welcomed by Willie Rennie, who said:

“By televising this, people like Gilroy, who have been found guilty of such a shocking crime, will face a day of reckoning. The public will be able to see justice being done.”

I kind of see his point, but I also feel very uneasy about it and I'm not sure why.

We would know what the Judge said to him, because it would be reported verbatim in the press, immediately, so there is already that element of transparency there.

I guess to see Lord Bracadale actually saying the words would make it a lot more real, but it seems a bit intrusive, nonetheless. He will doubtless outline to Gilroy the heinousness of his crime, exacerbated by his refusal to say where he buried Suzanne before telling him how long he'll serve. I'm not sure how Suzanne's friends and family would feel about that, though, and what would happen in future cases. Every case is different and every family reacts in a different way.

I was wondering if I was just being a luddite and I've always been caustic about establishment types who complained about the televising, or You Tubing, of Parliamentary proceedings. I certainly wouldn't want to count myself in with the people who objected to the Queen's coronation being televised because men would watch it in public houses with their hats on. This is different, though. Every single crime has a very personal consequence for somebody. In this case it involves bereavement and loss and the ending of a young life. A national celebration, or a Parliamentary Debate are not the same thing.

I know that the camera will only show the Judge's face and not the accused, or the public. Is this the start of a slippery slope which will end up with Scottish Courts being televised like American ones where murder cases are dramatically sensationalised? I'm not so sure it's that healthy to watch a murder trial on tv like the OJ Simpson trial, just to see what happens. It feels disrespectful to the victims and I think some distance is warranted. Also, I don't think I'd really want to see somebody in great distress giving evidence about a crime they'd witnessed or experienced.

Maybe my unease is partly because the justice system does have to stay extremely rational to work. Bringing emotion into it with tv cameras brings inconsistency which could render it unjust.

I certainly don't think that this development is the end of the world and I know that we are relatively unusual in  having such wide ranging reporting restrictions on court cases. Compare and contrast with Italy, though, where Amanda Knox was made out pretty much to be the bride of Satan ahead of her trial. How do you find an unbiased jury in these circumstances?

I may be conflating different issues here, but I just don't think that this is something we should necessarily welcome with open arms. For a justice system to work, people need to have confidence in it. I'm not sure that  filming a judge give a sentence actually adds to that when we can all read his judgement in full when it's released.

Sheridan gagging order is just wrong

Tommy Sheridan, former MSP and Solidarity party leader returns to Glasgow from prison today to serve the remainder of his 3 year sentence for perjury at home.

For six years, certain low risk prisoners have been eligible to be released from prison on home detention curfew to serve part of their sentences at home. They wear an electronic tag around their ankle and have to stay indoors generally for 12 hours a day.

There are certain basic conditions that an offender has to comply with. These include:

1. The offender must be of good behaviour and keep the peace.

2. The offender must not commit any offence.

3. The offender must not tamper with or intentionally damage the electronic monitoring equipment or device(s) used to monitor compliance with curfew conditions complying with section 12AB of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993( ⁹), or knowingly allow such equipment or device(s) to be tampered with or intentionally damaged.

4. The offender must allow a representative or employee of [ name of electronic monitoring service provider] access to the address specified in this licence for the purposes of section 12AB(1)(a) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 to install, check, repair or replace the electronic monitoring equipment or device(s).

So far, so sensible. In addition, the Scottish Parole Board can set further conditions. Keeping away from the victims of the crime would be one we could all agree with, for example, or complying with conditions relating to treatment for addictions. These conditions are all about managing the risk and providing rehabilitation. The restrictions on movement, being confined to one place for half the time is the punishment part. Thinking about it, I reckon that can be much more difficult in some ways than being in prison. Certainly you're out with your family and friends, but you can't just go to that concert with them, or even nip out to the shop if you discover you're out of milk last thing at night. It's not freedom like you and I take for granted.


The Scottish Government has this to say on curfew conditions:

When considering the release on HDC of a prisoner, consideration must be given to:

• Protecting the public at large
• Preventing re-offending by the prisoner, and
• Securing the successful reintegration of the prisoner into the community

All prisoners granted HDC are on licence subject to standard conditions and a curfew condition. Additional conditions may also be included in the licence, such as supervision and support.

The issue I have with Sheridan's conditions are that they include, after a press conference today, a restriction on speaking in public for the six months that he'll be under the home detention curfew. This is a condition that has never been imposed on anyone else before in Scotland. I guess the obvious parallel, although under a different legal system, is with Jeffrey Archer, who was writing ad publishing books while still in prison for a similar offence.

I find it worrying that preventing him from taking part in the debates that will be shaping our country over the next while is seen as legitimate.Don't get me wrong, I have no time for this character at all, but I feel that singling him out in this way is wrong.

Sheridan is not a free man as of today; he is still serving his sentence. However, to impose on him a restriction that has never been imposed on anyone else is additional punishment which is both unnecessary and wrong in principle. If we agree that he's eligible for the partial re-emergence into society that home detention curfew, allows, then surely he must be allowed to take part in discussing the issues of the day.

I was glad to see Willie Rennie taking this up at the weekend. Like me, he doesn't agree with Tommy Sheridan's views, but sees the risks in allowing this sort of condition to be set. He said:

“This order flies in the face of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent.

“Although Mr Sheridan holds views that I do not agree with I do not believe his right to express these views should be curtailed.

“In the run up to May’s local elections and in the early stages of the referendum debate he should be free to take in active role in promoting the things he believes in.

“To bar him participation is counter to our democratic values.”

Although this is a judicial matter, there has to be some sort of check when the Parole Board imposes fundamentally illiberal and unreasonable conditions like this which go way beyond risk management or support. The SNP has a pretty illiberal streak so you can't rely on Kenny MacAskill to notice. This is the guy who dismissed the appalling, repeated failures at Cornton Vale as nowt to do with him as I wrote last year.

I was a bit annoyed that Isabel Fraser didn't ask Nicola Sturgeon about this on the Sunday Politics yesterday. It was as much her responsibility as Stephen Hester's bonus which she was given the opportunity to criticise at length.

As I say, I have no particular desire to listen to Sheridan's firebrand, narcissistic, socialist claptrap, but I don't see why he should be prevented from inflicting it. It's important for our democracy that this condition is lifted.

A tale of two justice systems

Case Study Number 1

Police investigating the phone hacking scandal have arrested a number of people, including then News International Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks. But this hasn't involved knocking on their door and dragging them out in front of their neighbours. No, they have mostly been arrested by appointment at police stations. They are being investigated for involvement in some pretty serious crimes - hacking into the mobile of a missing schoolgirl, giving her parents false hope that she was still alive when they'd deleted some of her voicemails for a start. A pretty despicable crime.  It's caused one of the biggest outcries I can remember and led to the recall of Parliament from its Summer recess. The arrested people have now gone back to their rich, comfortable lives. I'm not saying they aren't under stress, but even if some of them end up spending time as guests of Her Majesty (and not in the way they are used to), they will still have comfortable homes to return to when it's all over.

Case Study Number 2

The Guardian reports that Conservative Wandsworth Council has issued an eviction notice on the mother of a teenage boy under investigation for rioting at Clapham Junction. Now, I don't know the exact circumstances of his arrest, but I have my doubts that it was by convenient appointment. How can it possibly help to make an entire family homeless? Yes, the vandalism and arson was serious. Yes, it's caused one of the biggest outcries I can remember and led to the recall of Parliament from it's Summer recess.  I don't get, though, why anyone convicted should, having spent time at Her Majesty's pleasure, come out to find that they don't have a home to go to. How is it right that the middle class child of owner occupiers would have a comfortable home to return to, while the poorer child of someone in social housing is homeless? That's punishing the poor a lot more than it is the rich and that is fundamentally unfair and unjust. Even if you argue that parents are responsible for their children's actions, what about any younger siblings? There are circumstances, unfortunately, when families have to be evicted - if, for example, they are making life hell for their neighbours through anti-social behaviour. The ultimate eviction comes at the end of a very long process in which the family have multiple chances to mend their ways, though.

It's important that the justice system is seen to be fair and consistent in the way it treats people who commit crimes. The response to the phone hacking scandal and the riots shows that this simply is not happening. We need Liberal Democrats to be speaking out against this - and using their position within government to change it. Happily, they are doing that as the Observer reported yesterday.

I doubt government ministers can interfere in the actions of a local Council so it's not as if any of them can directly influence this case - but the Liberal Democrats need to call the Tories out for the disproportionate, inaccurate and illiberal nonsense we've heard from them over the past week or so. I also wonder if the Tory Council in this case is using powers given by a previous Labour government. If that's the case, then Labour have a case to answer too.

We must not sit by and watch while the law is being enforced in such an unfair manner. The poor should not have to pay more for crime than the rich - yet that is exactly the message  that's being given out at the moment.

Should rioters lose their benefits and be sent to Afghanistan?

I would, frankly, be really offended if any regular readers thought my answer to the above question would be "yes".

We have a criminal justice system which decides the appropriate penalties for those who break our laws. We also as a society provide for those who have nothing. What good exactly would it do to deprive those convicted of offences related to the rioting with the means to feed, house and clothe themselves? For a start, if they have any basic instinct of self preservation, the first thing they would do is go and steal something. They could try to get a job of course, but their possibly newly acquired criminal record would stand in the way of that.

And then we have the possibility that these people might have dependents they are claiming for? Are people seriously saying that kids or partners should lose all means of state financial support because of the criminal action of a parent? If so, that is profoundly wrong.

We are not the kind of place that thinks it's acceptable to allow people to starve or sleep on the streets. The fact that the e-petition which calls for those convicted of rioting in London to loose (yes, really) their benefits has attracted more than 120,000 signatures horrifies me. This may well now be debated in Parliament and I hope that our MPs will be robust in fending off this nonsense.

Even more deeply offensive is the idea that rioters should be sent to Afghanistan "so they can prove how tough they are". There are several groups on Facebook, of which this is an example, attracting several thousand fans, calling for this.

Such ideas are deeply insulting to the professionalism of our troops who have trained meticulously for the unique and omnipresent dangers they face out there.

There are some really ignorant suggestions flying around the place at the moment - many of them advanced on the benches of the House of Commons yesterday. It is a testament to the presence of the Liberal Democrats in Government that the right wing of the Tory party is kept in check. Imagine if they were allowed to run amok like they did in the days of the Major Government in the 1990s.

It's up to anyone who values a fair and free society to do what they can to challenge their nonsense.

Why Liberal Democrats must care about burglars' lives

Ok, here we go, another hippy leftie soft on crime blog post from a bleeding heart liberal.

Actually, I'll cheerfully own up to everything except the soft on crime bit. No, I don't think that householders should offer a full fry up and a nice up of tea to the thug who's plundering their worldly possessions, but nor do I have any time for Ken Clarke's latest wheeze - to "clarify"  the amount of force a householder can use on a burglar. 

Being the victim of a burglary is horrible. Not only has somebody helped themselves to your hard earned property, or stuff with real sentimental value, but often the feeling that your space has been violated is really traumatic to deal with. And that's if they haven't done unspeakable things. My friends had a caravan which was broken into and let's just say the Police found a condom.

So it's awful even if you're not there. The trauma of feeling that your life is in danger must be horrendous.

I think it would be wrong, though, to effectively remove your personal accountability for your actions in that situation. If we believe that human life is valuable, and I hope that we all do, then we can't just decide that people have the right to kill trespassers at will.  Isn't this disproportionate?

We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”

 If you hit someone with a poker, you could kill them. One blow in the wrong place could be enough. During the course of a burglary, depending on the threat to your life, that might be a justifiable response. But if that does happen, and someone loses their life or is maimed permanently, isn't it best that the criminal justice system takes a look at what went on? I don't think that you should just take away all personal responsibility from householders, even if they are victims of crime.Let's look at this rationally. If the law is "clarifed" to suggest that householders can do what they heck they like to a trespasser, if you were a burglar, would you not go prepared for that eventuality? An opportunist break in becomes a much more seriously planned affair with maybe a knife, or a gun brought along for security. Anything that increases the number of guns and knives on the street is going to lead to more dead people. Individuals should have the right to protect their homes and their families, but the current law gives them the 
right  to do that in a proportionate manner.

The current law has safeguards for all of us. There is a good reason we have a police force and don't allow order to be kept by whichever gang is supreme at the moment. It's why we have courts to mete out appropriate sanctions and not victims who are bound to be subjective. If anyone harmed a hair on the head of anyone I love, you can bet your life I'd want them to be dealt with extremely severely - maybe more so than was actually fair. There are good reasons why that decision should be made by an independent body. I expect our MPs to make it perfectly clear to Ken Clarke that they will not support any such changes.  This is where we as liberals have to make a difference.

How can anyone support Hearts FC now?

A few years ago, then Scots Tory leader David McLetchie had to resign  effectively for taking a few taxis he shouldn't. Ultimately, he's a decent bloke, and losing his job was probably a bit severe. In the volatile world of politics, though, his position was untenable. I wouldn't condone what McLetchie did, but it was an easily made and easily rectified mistake.

And then we have Craig Thomson, the Hearts defender, who has recently been convicted of sending lewd photographs of himself to girls of 12 and 14. He has walked away with a £4000 fine and has been put on the sex offenders' register. Has he lost his job? No. He's walked back into his high profile job with a premier league club. That seems wrong to me.

He issued an apology, one which really worries me on two grounds. Firstly, he apologises to everyone except the two girls concerned. Then he talks about how the Club has shown "full understanding into every aspect of my situation." That sounds to me that a part of him, in his own mind, has justified what he did. I don't think there is any excuse for it. The Scotsman today reports an interview with the 12 year old's mother who states that he was fully aware of her age. If he'd said, actually, there's no excuse, I'm really sorry, and I'll be taking steps in my own life to address my lack of responsibility and judgement I might be prepared to think differently, but as things stand, I don't believe he should continue in his role at Hearts.

Why?

Simply because it sends the wrong message to children to keep a footballer who is in a high profile position, as a role model to children, on their team in circumstances such as this. I agree with the charity Children 1st, who have called for Hearts to reconsider his position. Their policy officer Kate Higgins, better known to us as The Burd was on the news yesterday and she said:

"We believe that Hearts football club needs to look again at this situation, not taking action to protect children from the risk of sexual harm is unacceptable.
"Allowing convicted sex offenders to continue working where they will have direct and indirect contact with children is wrong."

Part of the reason that I'm writing this post now and not two hours ago is that I've become involved in a debate on Twitter about this. Good liberals, people I respect, take the opposite view. One thing I think is quite good is that in the main (apart from the person who called me a right wing vigilante) had a civilised debate about a highly emotive issue. My respect for the people concerned did make me question my initial instinct, but I haven't changed my mind. However, I do want to qualify what I mean.

I don't believe that everyone on the sex offenders' register should lose their job. That seems to me to be completely counter productive and against every instinct of the rehabilitative and restorative justice that I believe so passionately in. It may well lead to re-offending or more serious first time offending if that were the case. These people, if they are not being locked up to protect the public, need to be able to earn money and have a life of quality. There are some jobs, though, which they shouldn't be allowed to do. Allowing close contact and responsibility for those they've been convicted of abusing is wrong.

Craig Thomson has implied that there are some mitigating circumstances which justify his conduct towards a child whose age he actually knew. Footballers, whether we like it or not, are role models to young people. Always have been, before the trashy celebrity driven media. By keeping him in post, Hearts are sending out a message to young men that they will support an adult male who has behaved inappropriately towards a child. Young girls who may be experiencing that sort of abuse, they see a man who has done this suffering very few consequences.  Can that be right?

It may well be that I'm reacting particularly strongly to this because I have a 12 year old daughter myself. She's growing up, and she's emotionally mature for her age, but she's still very much a child.

I do wonder whether the way the law deals with these crimes is right. A fine, and being put on a list. That's not rehabilitative. I just think he should have had access to some sort of facility where he could talk through this and be encouraged to see for himself, in a non threatening environment, why what he did was totally, inexcusably wrong. And taught strategies to cope with any issues which surround his conduct.

Back in the day, Richard Bacon, then a 22 year old Blue Peter presenter, was sprung by a Sunday tabloid doing Cocaine. He was immediately sacked. No questions asked. He hadn't even been convicted of a crime. He did, though, take full responsibility for what he'd done. He spoke very honestly to the Guardian many years later about how it felt at that time, being at the eye of that particular storm. His sacking wasn't the end of his life, and he's built a successful broadcasting career since, but he did have to take the consequences of his foolishness.

I'm not saying that Craig Thomson shouldn't have a job. I just think that a high profile role at a premier league football club is not appropriate at this time, especially not while he still thinks there is an excuse for what he did.

It's clear that not all is well in the judgement department at Hearts at the moment, as this bizarre statement from owner Vladimir Romanov, accusing outside Mafia forces, indistinguishable from paedophiles, of interfering with the club's fortunes.

James, from Better Nation, a fan of the club since he was a wee boy, writes about why he can no longer support them. I really can't see why anybody would after the events of the last week.

Why a strong, liberal voice is necessary, episode 1

I can't imagine many more traumatic experiences than the loss of a child at any age.

I don't think, though, that  people often understand how awful it is to lose a baby to miscarriage or stillbirth or in the first few days after birth.  It's such a hard and cruel thing to go through, physical and emotional agony combining to permeate every single part of your consciousness. For a very long time. And people expect you just to get over it. That just ain't going to happen. It may at some stage not hurt so much, but getting over the death of a child is not something we're programmed to do.

Imagine, then, in the depths of that grief, you're arrested and interrogated by the Police. And then maybe charged with murder. You face the rest of your life in prison.

Of course that wouldn't happen. Where could the law be used in that way?

Yes it could, in the Land of the Free itself.

Don't believe me? Well it's all in Friday's Guardian, which reported that as many as 300 women have been  arrested and accused of murdering their unborn babies. A tweet from Chris Took on Friday night in response to my tweet about that story led me to this account of how a woman who accidentally fell down the stairs and subsequently lost her baby was taken away and interrogated.  Apparently, because she'd considered terminating her pregnancy at the beginning, and decided against it, the nurse to whom she'd confided this took it upon herself to report her to the police. Strange idea of patient confidentiality there.

The persecution of women in these circumstances, some of whom will be women who through poverty or abuse may ended up with drug problems, is apparently a new and sinister  front in the increasingly bitter debate over abortion in the US.

The events described in the reports show what can happen if dogmatic belief and intolerance is allowed to reign unchecked.  You need a strong liberal presence to stand up to this sort of persecution of vulnerable, powerless women. If you start prosecuting women when they lose their babies, where will it stop? If they eat a bit of brie and get listeria? If they climb a ladder to do some decorating for the nursery and fall? If they choose to give birth at home? That would be the logical conclusion.

You might think that if people are worried about babies being born addicted to drugs, they might do something about the circumstances which lead to poverty and addiction instead of persecuting women when it's too late.

While I was thinking about this, I read the amazing Elephant's post about how sloth, intertia, is a real danger. Does it really take a real threat to our liberty to make us appreciate it?  Why can't we see the consequences of illiberal measures? When the Daily Fail complains about there being too many human rights around, nobody really has much of an idea about what the alternative would be like.  I am speechless with anger about the treatment of these women in the US. And, of course, these laws have not been used against many men who've violently abused their pregnant partners, causing them to lose their babies.

I think it's important to be aware of what's happening in other countries, where, as I've said, there isn't a strong liberal voice speaking up for justice and defending rights which have been fought over for decades.  Liberal in certain areas of the US is often used as a term of abuse.

Speaking up for the underdog,for those who can't defend themselves, against a state that tries to wield inappropriate power, calling out for fairness and justice are what we as liberals are for. In a Scottish context, when the First Minister talked about the recent Supreme Court judgements showing up where we fail to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights as allowing the vilest people in society to claim money from the public purse, it made me shudder with horror.  If that's the SNP Government's attitude towards prisoners, you have to wonder if that's why Kenny MacAskill didn't prioritise the improvement of conditions at our only women's prison Cornton Vale after the first damning report, leading to a second inspection report which laid bare the lack of even basic facilities or access to medical treatment.

And then there's the anti sectarian bill - there are still serious issues of freedom of speech to be resolved with that.

In England we've seen the arguments over the cross examination of the Dowler family by their daughter's murderer's lawyer which most people will feel uneasy about. The more illiberal elements of the press are saying that there should be limits on the sorts of questions that can be asked. As David Allen Green points out in the New Statesman, there are limits on what Barristers can ask and they can face sanctions and complaint if they go too far and also the trial judge has a say. I tend to agree more with the comments of Lord MacDonald and Shami Chakrabarti on Andrew Marr this morning. They said it's important to ensure that people have the right to defend themselves, and that our justice system has to be seen to be open. Most of the time when I read the reports of a criminal trial and the subsequent verdict, it gives me confidence that the verdict reached was the correct one on the basis of the evidence. There are a tiny minority of cases when I haven't had that feeling - and, funnily enough, they are often the ones where it transpires there's an issue with the conviction. Justice carried out in secret is quite a worrying thing.

We have to evaluate our system to ensure that it is treating everyone within it fairly, and striking the right balance is not easy. A strong liberal voice in that process is essential. Without it, you might end up in a position where you find yourself looking at a long stretch in prison for a crime you didn't commit and without the ability to defend yourself fully - and once you're in prison, nobody to care about what happens to you.

Kenny, Cornton Vale failure is your responsibility - sort it or go

Almost exactly two years ago, the Scottish Liberal Democrats highlighted the increase in the number of women self harming in prison. This came at around the same time as a damning inspection report on Scotland's only women's prison.

You would think, then, that, the SNP Government would have sorted things in time for the follow-up inspection which took place in February this year.

Sadly, and to my absolute fury, the inspection report released yesterday shows that things have not improved and have in some areas got worse over the last two years.  Conventional wisdom dictates that where problems have been identified in a service, that things will improve because of the spotlight, the attention, given to it. Not in this case. Look at the summary of progress since 2009:

Progress

2.1 Progress since the last inspection has been as follows.
Good Practice
Areas of Good Practice still in place       6
Areas which can no longer be described as Good Practice    4
Recommendations
Satisfactory progress made     3
Reasonable progress made     2
Progress not satisfactory     17
Points of Note
Satisfactory progress made   24
Reasonable progress made   15
Progress not satisfactory    36 

So, 4 areas which were described as showing Good Practice in 2009 no longer warrant that description and only 5 out of 17 recommendations have shown acceptable progress. We're going backwards, here.

It breaks my heart to think that women are being kept in conditions which are known to be overcrowded and their basic health needs, particularly in mental health, go unmet. It's not right.

Let's give you some examples. Yesterday's report is full of the righteous indignation of an inspector, Hugh Munro, who has seen for himself that his recommendations have been ignored.

It seems that the prison is failing at the most basic of levels. Paragraph 2.8 says:

The treatment of prisoners and the conditions in which they live are just not sufficiently good. This was a theme in the 2009 Inspection and except for minor progress in repainting some house blocks, conditions have either remained much the same or failed to improve. Indeed in some areas, such as the Mother and Baby Unit, they have worsened. The very poor access to toilets for women in Bruce and Younger Houses has continued and the dignity, safety, infection control and health issues associated with this
unacceptable situation are even more stark than in 2009.  

 Hugh Munro concludes that care of women with mental health problems must improve, noting that the most vulnerable don't even have proper care plans. And read what he has to say about the treatment of women removed from association:

Nowhere is the mental health issue more stark than in the euphemistically-named ‘Management Suite’ in Ross House. This segregation area is more colloquially known as the ‘back cells’. These cells are utterly depressing and are an unsuitable environment in which to hold very vulnerable girls and women. It is my view that these cells are used primarily as a control measure. Staff are insufficiently trained to deal with the women held there.  

He concludes that the lack of activity for women is also harmful to their well being.

I conclude that the way the regime is run at Cornton Vale must be reviewed with a determination to involve a far higher proportion of women in activities and offending behaviour interventions. This must include short-term prisoners as well as those on remand. For these two prisoner groups in particular, life at Cornton Vale is just far too restrictive, unproductive and lacking in challenge. This is no way to manage female prisoners in Scotland if there is to be any hope of reducing the level and frequency of their offending. 

As a liberal, I believe that prison should be there primarily to rehabilitate those who have broken the law, to give them the help and support they need to enable them to contribute positively to society when they come out. It's not just about money, although it is much cheaper if people don't keep going in and out of prison, it's about the human cost of persistent failure to give the appropriate support. Not just for the person concerned, but for their children.

So, given the second damning report in two years, what has justice secretary Kenny MacAskill done? Taken immediate, practical action to sort the problems out in the prison? Well, that wouldn't really be the SNP way. Their mantality seems to be "Why do today what you can talk about tomorrow and the next day?"You see the same thing with their moratorium on rural school closures. Anything but make a decision and do something.

MacAskill has set up a Commission to improve justice for female offenders, chaired by former Lord Advocate Dame Eilish Angiolini. This Commission will report by the end of this year. That report will no doubt sit on MacAskill's desk for a couple of months, and then, slowly, if we're lucky, some of its recommendations might be implemented. So we're looking at a good year before much improves inside Cornton Vale.

The thing is, Kenny doesn't need to set up another talking shop. If he just looked, the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Parliament actually looked at these issues 2 years ago in their report entitled "Female Offenders in the Justice System." I would be very surprised if this new Commission tells him anything different. What is it about SNP ministers that they disrespect the committees of the Parliament so much and set up their own bodies to duplicate their work?

If you look at that report, there's loads of stuff on how a more joined up approach between social services, housing, benefits and the prison service is needed,  how better care was needed to prevent reoffending, how mental health therapies needed to be available. It's not really rocket science. The report also asked for more clarity from MacAskill on sentencing (paragraph 114 and 115):

 Given the contrasting evidence on whether women are more harshly sentenced than men, the Committee notes with great interest quotes attributed to the Cabinet Secretary in the Herald on 12 August 2009:“There is analysis that (when) a man and woman facing punishment for the same offence, the woman will get a higher tariff. That is a product of Scottish society and perhaps male chauvinism that affects politicians as much as the judiciary. I don't think it is done deliberately, it is a cultural thing.”⁶⁶115. The issue of gender inequalities in sentencing was raised with the Cabinet Secretary when he and his officials provided oral evidence to the Committee on 23 June 2009. A Scottish Government official said “I am not sure that we have any statistics that show that women are punished more harshly than men.”⁶⁷ Given the Cabinet Secretary’s subsequent reported comments, the Committee considers that he should have raised these concerns first when providing oral evidence.The Committee would like to receive a more detailed summary of the analysis that the Cabinet Secretary is quoted as referring to, and, more importantly, an explanation of the action that he will take to address this apparent inequity in sentencing.

I think what annoys me the most about this, what really sticks in my craw, is MacAskill's blatant attempt to pretend that this catastrophic failure in the prison system is nothing to do with him.

"It highlights the serious issues facing female offenders, and, while the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) has made good progress in areas such as suicide risk management and education programmes, it is clear that much remains to be done to improve conditions. Things as they stand are unacceptable.

"This is a matter in operational terms for SPS and I know that they are looking carefully at the issues that have been raised and how they should be dealt with.

Sorry, Kenny. "It wisnae me, it was them at the Scottish Prison Service" just won't wash. You know why? Let's have a wee look at your ministerial responsibilities:

Kenny MacAskill MSP Responsibilities include: Criminal law and procedure, youth justice, criminal justice social work, police, prisons and sentencing policy, legal aid, legal profession, courts and law reform, anti-social behaviour, sectarianism, human rights, fire and rescue services, community safety, civil contingencies, drugs policy and related matters, liquor licensing, vulnerable witnesses, victim support and civil law, charity law, religious and faith organisations.

I'm pleased to see that Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesperson Alison McInnes has seen through MacAskill's excuses. She said:

 “This is a damming report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. Nothing has been done to improve conditions at Cornton Vale Prison following last year’s poor report. In fact this report says that conditions are now much more ‘stark’.  “While I welcome the setting up of the Commission to look at a longer term strategy to reduce offending, that does not address the fact that the Government is utterly failing the women in the system now.
 “This is a shocking situation and the Justice Secretary cannot be allowed to shrug it off as an “operational matter for SPS”, he must take responsibility and direct that immediate improvements are made.” 

 Alison's right, but I don't have quite as much patience as she does. This Minister was told in 2009 both by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and by a committee of the Parliament that there were major failings at Cornton Vale and in the way women were treated in the justice system. Two years later, things, if anything, have got worse. If he's not prepared to take immediate, practical action to sort out the disgraceful conditions at Cornton Vale, then, frankly, he should hand over to someone who will.

Should we free dying prisoners?

I always thought that the practice of keeping prisoners shackled as they gave birth was barbaric and could not believe that it went on until 1996 with the now sainted Ann Widdecombe justifying it.

I always think that the punishment part of a prison sentence is being deprived of liberty, of the ability just to nip out whenever you want and of being in charge of your own life. Living in such circumstances would be one of the worst things that could happen to me, restricting the amount of time, to almost next to nothing, that I could spend with the people I loved. Imagine if that happened to you? How would you cope spending 23 hours a day locked up with strangers?

It's right, of course, that we can and should as a society restrict the liberty of people who have committed crimes against society, and that these punishments should be proportionate to the crime - the worse the offence, the longer the sentence. I also readily accept that there are some individuals, thankfully few and far between, whose crimes are so awful that they should never be let out as long as they are considered a risk to the public.

I do wonder, though, whether it's right to keep someone who is in the final stages of a terminal illness in jail, and whether it's right that a politician is the one who has to make the final decision as to whether to let them go. The two recent cases, of the Lockerbie bomber and Ronnie Biggs have made me think about what happens to you if you are not a high profile prisoner and find yourself facing death in prison. Al Megrahi and Biggs are dealt with by two different legal systems, but their final fate is down to the decision of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill for Megrahi and Jack Straw, UK Secretary for Biggs.

My instinct is that regardless of the crime that the person has committed, that the compassionate thing to do is to let them free to spend their last days with their families if that's what they want to do. Should that not happen as a matter of course? I can't imagine that anyone in the final stages of a terminal illness is going to pose much of a danger to the public.

I know it's a controversial thing to suggest, and that many victims of crime, especially those who have lost a family member to murder would find it hard to see someone being given in death something they denied to others. I sympathise, of course, and if I were in their position I may feel the same way.

I can't believe that Jack Straw didn't release Biggs two months ago when he was first asked to. There was never any public danger from him and I feel he should have been more compassionate then.

Robert Brown had a point when he accused Kenny MacAskill of grandstanding over his visit to Al-Megrahi. There was no need for him to go, but nor do I feel there is a need for a politician to have the final say over whether someone should be released. They are not going to be making their decision in a vacuum - they are bound to have half a mind to the political consequences of whatever they do.

Shouldn't these decisions be made by an independent body and there be a presumption in favour of release in the final stages of any terminal illness? To me it's what a civilised, compassionate society would do. What do you think?

Conversations with Nick Clegg - Part 2

Nick gets passionate about justice, reducing crime and the EU.



Good to see that the European Elephant has been welcomed into the room. We've spent too many European elections when our campaign strategy has been to avoid talking about it as much as possible. We've come out this time quite bullish about how essential it is that we should work together with our neighbours on issues like crime, trade, jobs and climate change. There's no point in trying to tackle international crime or global warming on our own - we need the sort of co-operation with our neighbours that the Tories can't even begin to imagine. We won't get anywhere with their isolationist view.

LibDig This!