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.

McInnes: The beginning of the end for local justice

I asked this morning if North East Fife MSP Rod Campbell would put constituency over party over court closures. Sadly, we now know the answer. He, like his SNP colleagues and John Finnie who is technically an independent voted down a Labour motion to annul the orders closing the courts.

I am certain he won't be allowed to forget that choice in a hurry.

It was depressing to watch the SNP MSPs criticise the closures and then vote for them. It was as though they were too scared to defy Kenny MacAskill.

It was also depressing how few of them, including MacAskill were bothered about the human consequences of their decision.

Liberal Democrat Justice Spokesperson Alison McInnes had this to say after the vote.

Today’s vote marks the beginning of the end for local justice in Scotland.

SNP members of the committee have shown complete contempt for their constituents in voting to close down local courts in Cupar, Stonehaven, Peebles, Haddington and around the country.  To make the argument to save their local courts and yet blithely vote for the Government demonstrates a complete lack of respect.

Kenny MacAskill may try to shirk responsibility, but these are his plans.  He is responsible for ending Scotland’s proud tradition of delivering justice at the heart of local communities.

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.

My speech to Conference: MacAskill should show compassion to all prisoners, not just one

There are few things in life that I'm angrier about than the SNP Government's shameful treatment of women in prison which I've written about several times. The issue of reducing crime through effective rehabilitation was debated at Conference. When the original motion, submitted by the then virtually all male Policy Committee was published, there was no specific mention of the needs of women in prison. That's the problem when we don't have proper gender balance. The Policy Committee even now is 82% male and while I might well catch such things in the future, it's something we need to address. It's not malicious - it's just that nobody thought. And somebody needs to think, particularly as we passed a motion last October that said that all policy had to be constructed under the principles of gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, Scottish Women Liberal Democrats submitted an amendment highlighting SNP failure and calling for better conditions, support and development opportunities for women in prison. I proposed it on Saturday. It was my first policy speech in 8 years. And also, probably, the first time I'd worn a dress in as long.Even longer since I wore proper boots, too.

I had done loads of research before Conference but hadn't had the time in a manic week to put it together in a coherent speechified form. That meant a sleepless night for me on Friday and an early start, given that I had an 8:30 meeting and this was the first item on the agenda at 10.

The thing that annoyed me the most is that Kenny MacAskill had made a huge play of showing compassion to Megrahi. Now, I supported the decision to release him. It was the right thing to do. However, I don't see why MacAskill couldn't have shown the same sort of compassion to the hundreds of women prisoners who were forced into a miserable incarceration with some not even having the basics like beds and access to toilets.

So here is the speech I made. I'm glad to say that both motion and amendment were passed overwhelmingly by Conference.

This motion is very welcome – as Liberal Democrats we believe that the criminal justice system should be focused on helping people turn their lives around and contribute positively to society.

Scottish Women Liberal Democrats felt, however, that women prison have specific needs, and the SNP Government’s catastrophic failure to protect them merited our amendment. I am particularly proud of Alison McInnes and Willie Rennie for their persistence with the SNP on this over the past year and we can be sure that their strong, liberal voices will continue to stand up for vulnerable women in prison.

In mid 2009, Robert Brown, our justice spokesperson, highlighted the worrying increase in self harm amongst women prisoners. That same year, the Prisons Inspector published a damning report on conditions at Cornton Vale.

If any of us had been justice minister, we would have been absolutely mortified by such horrendous basic failures exacerbated by chronic overcrowding. We’d have made it our business to do something about it, set specific targets for improvement and followed through to make sure things got better.

What did Kenny MacAskill do? Well it looks like he just left the report on a shelf to gather dust. What else would you expect from a justice secretary who views a judgement that our legal system falls short of the European Convention of Human Rights as an excuse to pick a fight with Westminster.

Shockingly, in 2011, when the Inspector returned to Cornton Vale he found, if anything, that things had got worse with some women not even having proper beds, sleeping on mattresses on the floor.

The inspector said:“Conditions since 2009 have remained the same or failed to improve. The very poor access to toilets has continued and dignity, safety, infection control and health issues associated with this unacceptable situation is worse than in 2009.”

It’s not just about the fabric of the place – he talked about the regime where grim cells were used as a control measure for vulnerable women by staff insufficiently trained to meet their needs.

The problems were endemic, the inspector said, with relations between prisoners and staff having further deteriorated with an unacceptable culture and lack of trust.
Women in prison are far more likely to have poor mental health and the most vulnerable didn’t even have proper care plans.

So what did Kenny MacAskill do? He set up a commission on women offenders to be chaired by Eilish Angiolini which will report imminently. I can’t imagine she’ll have radically conclusions to that reached by the Scottish Parliament’s Equal Opportunities Committee in 2010, or the 2009 study which found that more women were being imprisoned despite there being no more crime committed by women.

What’s important is that Angiolini’s report is acted upon. MacAskill needs to show some political leadership on this to bring about change both in sentencing and prison conditions.

Shamefully, he said last year that conditions at the prison were an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service. It’s so typical of the SNP’s responsibility to accept responsibility for anything. It’s never them. There’s always a local council, or Westminster, or a Government agency to blame.

Well, I looked up the Scottish Government website and, do you know what, next to Kenny MacAskill’s name was responsibility for prisons. Conference, the buck stops with him. He’s famously shown compassion to one specific prisoner. What about all the others he fails every single day?

Our amendment calls for things that should be an intrinsic part of any prison regime – meeting health needs, access to training and education, support for women to overcome the issues that lead to offending behaviour.

We also note the £20 million for capital improvements in the budget, although it’s a very small part of what’s needed. The only person, incidentally, I heard talking about this during the budget process was Willie Rennie.

By passing this amendment, we will be sending a message to Kenny McAskill and Alex Salmond that Scotland’s liberal voices will not tolerate their Government’s scandalous neglect of women prisoners.

Please support the motion and amendment.

A Bill so bad that even authoritarian Labour can't support it......

Well, the SNP Government's bill to tackle sectarianism really can't have much going for it.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats and Greens opposed it from the start, even before the measure attracted criticism from across Scottish civic society.

I thought it was a good sign when Alex Salmond decided not to rush the Bill through before the Summer recess, but, sadly, the Government has not listened to the criticism that has been resoundingly heaped on the measure.

You would expect the Liberal Democrats to stand up against anything that could have implications for freedom of speech, but Labour love creating new offences and infringing people's civil liberties. I mean, when they were in Government at Westminster, requesting a vegetarian meal on a plane could be enough to have the security services giving you a second glance, taking a picture of a building could have you stopped by the Police and walking through Parliament Square could have you stopped and searched under Section 44 of their Terrorism Act. The fact that they are opposing this Bill speaks volumes.

Of course, the SNP will complain that it's just everyone else ganging up against them. That might have some traction if the Bill hadn't been so resoundingly criticised during the consultation. The most articulate opposition I've seen comes from a nationalist, the fabulous Lallands Peat Worrier. My learned friend won't be invited round to Kenny MacAskill's for egg nog this Christmas, that's for sure, as he has been scathing about the Bill and the quality of the scrutiny it's given from SNP dominated committees which he describes as "embarrassingly craven and intellectually sloppy".

Of course sectarianism needs to be tackled. As a highlander, I grew up blissfully unaware of such bigotry in my country and it came as a shock when I encountered it for the first time. This bill is not the way forward, though. There is much that can be done under existing laws, but the key is effecting cultural change by education. There is a whole load more the football authorities should be doing, too. Why doesn't the SFA tell clubs that if they don't get their fans in order, they'll be playing games behind closed doors? I'm sure the loss of the gate money would concentrate their minds.

I'm glad that the opposition parties in Holyrood have decided to work together to oppose this Bill. From my point of view, it's confusing, I'm not convinced that criticism of religion won't be penalised. I'm not in the business of hating anyone but I reserve the right to question, politely and rationally, their religious beliefs if they impact on mine or anyone else's freedoms. There are just too many potentially unintended consequences of this legislation as it stands and it really should be withdrawn.And if the SNP listens, and does withdraw it, they should be commended, not slated for a U-Turn. This issue is too important for childish point scoring.

Alison McInnes, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' Justice Spokesperson said:

“While it is clear that sectarianism needs to be tackled in Scottish society, it has been plain from the outset that this Bill is ill-thought-out, rushed and will do little to address the underlying problems associated with sectarian behaviour.
 “The SNP Government have not made the case for this Bill and the lack of any kind of consensus should act as a very clear warning sign that the Bill is seriously flawed.
 “The First Minister should not have charged ahead with this Bill and he must now withdraw it.”

 

Alison McInnes: Kenny MacAskill must stop dodging responsibility for Cornton Vale

Phone hacking and News International are both terrible things, and they have, understandably, dominated the headlines over the past couple of weeks.

However, there's another scandal in Scotland - that of the appalling conditions endured by prisoners at Scotland's only women's prison, Cornton Vale, near Stirling.

Not once, but twice now, HM Inspector of Prisons has uncovered horrendous conditions there. In 2009 he outlined a series of failings. Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, did very little to remedy the situation. This may be because he and Alex Salmond have made it clear that they consider prisoners among the vilest people in society and so don't have much concern for their basic wellbeing and human rights. That's certainly how it looks.

Earlier this year, the inspector returned to the prison and discovered that, if anything, things had got worse. I wrote about this in greater detail here.  Basically many women in the heavily overcrowded Cornton Vale don't even have access to a decent bed or toilet. And when it comes to their mental health issues, they simply don't get the treatment they need.

Scottish Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson Alison McInnes spoke out at the time and I'm glad to see that she hasn't forgotten the issue.

Today she challenged Kenny MacAskill, who's on a tour of Scottish prisons, to sort out Cornton Vale without delay. He extraordinarily said last month that this was an operational matter for the Scottish Prison Service. This is nonsense and he should take personal charge of the matter.

Alison said:

Kenny MacAskill has refused to answer why he failed to take any action to improve conditions at Cornton Vale prison after two damning reports.
 “When he arrived at the prison today, he would have seen how ‘stark’ the conditions are and how many prisoners are sleeping without proper beds. I hope this will shame him into taking immediate action.
 “The Scottish Government is failing women in the criminal justice system. Instead of dodging his responsibility, the Justice Secretary needs to take direct responsibility and ensure immediate improvements are made.”  

I'm sure Alison will be on MacAskill's case until conditions improve.

Don't rush sectarian bill - Lib Dem Alison McInnes

Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson Alison McInnes has warned of the dangers of rushing to pass Alex Salmond's anti-sectarianism bill without giving proper time for scrutiny. The SNP Government wants it to become law by the time the football season starts at the end of July. The parliamentary recess takes place from the beginning of July until the beginning of September. You do the maths.

I have been concerned about this legislation, because it has knee jerk reaction written all over it. We need to be sure that the measures contained within the legislation are liberal, fair and necessary. It's very important that the laws are properly scrutinised for unintended consequence. Religion should not be immune from robust criticism and rational debate and it would be wrong for Parliament to pass a law which, for example, forbade me from saying that I felt any Church leader's stance on or treatment of gay people was wrong.

Two weeks is simply not enough time to properly scrutinise a measure and I think that it would be best left until after the Summer.

Alison addressed this in her speech this afternoon, saying:

....we want to see action on sectarianism. Let us be very clear.  Sectarianism has no place in our society.  Every single one of us in this chamber agrees that any discrimination based on religion is unacceptable; any threatening behaviour based on religion is wrong; and any acts inciting violence because of religion must not be tolerated. However, I think that the Government are naïve if they believe they can solve a centuries old problem by rushing through new legislation in the next fortnight. Just this weekend, the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business wrote of how he would like to see more pre-legislative scrutiny in Parliament.  Can I say now, that, for once, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Crawford.  The Government are talking about introducing two entirely new offences onto the statute books.  Surely it is right that Parliament – that the people of Scotland – are allowed the time to study the proposals, take evidence, and try to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, no collateral infringements on law-abiding citizens’ liberties?  Oh, and to ensure that the new law actually does what it is intended to. There are many questions that any Government should have to answer before they can introduce a new law.  And any responsible Parliament cannot – or at least, should not – pass a law until all such questions are answered. This proposed new law is no different.  And the first – and most fundamental – question asks whether a new law is actually needed? The Cabinet Secretary tried to answer this very question on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago.  He said there are gaps in current Breach of the Peace definitions, meaning that “in some instances” there could be difficulties in prosecutions.  He might be right, but I say to him – we need to see the evidence.
 Are there gaps?  Well, just under a month ago, the then Solicitor General Frank Mulholland issued a press release welcoming “the high prosecution rate for crimes of religious prejudice.”
 If there are gaps would the new law close them?  Well, I await sight of the Bill with interest, but I can guarantee we won’t be able to adequately answer that question in two weeks with no chance to take expert evidence. I would also say this.  In England and Wales in the three years to 2010 since the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was enacted, there were 36,763 completed prosecutions of offences that were racially or religiously aggravated.  In that time, exactly one person was charged with an offence that had been introduced by the new Act.  He was acquitted.
 The Racial and Religious Hatred Act is a solid law.  It was debated in depth.  Expert evidence was taken over many days and weeks.  And it has made zero difference to convictions for religiously or racially motivated crimes. I am not saying that a new law will not work.  I am asking the Government to take the necessary time to consider all possibilities.
 Is it that offensive chanting is already covered by Breach of the Peace, but is simply hard to police because of the number of people involved? Is it that sending bullets through the post is actually already covered through anti-terrorism legislation?
 Is it that sending death threats via the internet is already covered by the UK Communications Act? And is it that the sectarian aspect of all these crimes is already dealt with by section 74 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, and it just needs to be enforced better? These are the questions the Government should be asking before it introduces legislation.  And it should be giving Parliament time to find the answers. 

I think that the most important thing in dealing with sectarianism is education. I remember a boy from my primary school nearly getting expelled for thumping a boy from the Catholic school down the road "because he was a Catholic." The entire school was summoned to the hall and I swear the head teacher didn't draw breath for 10 minutes as she rightly told us how awful it was to hit someone because of their religion, and how important religious freedom was.The boy concerned was eventually allowed to stay, but he was made to suffer first. The fear of Mrs Mackintosh which was much, much worse than any deity could ever offer. I'm fairly certain he's never done anything like that since.

I think actually modern education is much better at teaching messages of tolerance.

Two weeks is no time to properly scrutinise a piece of legislation. Let's hope that the Parliament realises this and asks the Government to wait until August. As my Granny used to say, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.