³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Justice 1 Committee, 27 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 27, 2001

Official Report 323KB pdf

---

Petition

Item 5 on the agenda is petition PE265 from George McAulay. Members will see that we have received a fair number of responses expressing some sympathy for the idea in the petition, including support from the Law Society of Scotland. However, more concern was expressed about protecting the anonymity of the victim as a consequence of giving anonymity to the accused, rather than about being in favour of giving anonymity to the accused per se. There have also been responses against the petition. Members will also have received a late e-mail from the petitioner. How should we deal with this?

The opinion has been expressed that we should perhaps discuss this with the Minister for Justice. That might be worth while.

There are good arguments on both sides of this debate. However, injustice sometimes occurs because of failure to give some individuals anonymity with respect to the type of charge that the petition refers to. It is unfortunate when names are mentioned, because that gives rise to publicity. In his letter to us, Mr McAulay writes about one individual who has suffered extremely badly because of the lack of anonymity. There have been many such instances.

To my mind, the issue centres on the seriousness of this particular offence. Rape is probably one of the basest of crimes. If someone is charged with rape, there is a stigma, especially if the sexual abuse of children is involved. This crime is different from other crimes. Most of the arguments that are employed against granting anonymity to the accused are based on the fact that anonymity is not granted for people accused of other crimes. However, as I say, this crime is different.

Maureen Macmillan, in the protection from abuse bill that she has been working on, recognises that, with this crime, we are dealing with special circumstances. I therefore think that the Government should consider this matter again. In Ireland, anonymity can be granted; the Irish Government had good reasons for allowing that. I was interested to learn in the evidence that we have received that that was once tried in the UK—or at least in England—but then abandoned.

There is a lot of conflicting evidence but, at the end of the day, my mind goes back to one person in Ayr who took his own life in such a case. I am frightened that similar situations may have developed since then.

Phil Gallie is correct. This is a difficult area, there are conflicting views and it is not easy to see the correct way forward.

When we discussed this before, I said that I had no objection to reporting restrictions being imposed in such cases, because a lot of damage is done by salacious newspaper reporting. It would be different from giving someone anonymity, but having some kind of restriction on the reporting of such cases might help.

We have not yet asked the Minister for Justice about this. We could formally ask the department for written comment or we could take the opportunity, the next time that the minister attends the committee, to ask some questions on this issue. I am not convinced that we should ask the minister to come to the committee specifically to answer questions on this issue. It is not sufficiently urgent and our view is not yet clear enough.

Mr McAulay has provided us with written information. I think that we should, in committee, ask questions and put our own views—and members will have different views. I accept that we do not need to ask the minister to come to the committee specifically to address this issue, but, the next time that he does come, I would be obliged, convener, if you could fit it into the agenda. That would keep the petition running.

Are members happy with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.