1. To ask the Scottish Government, other than the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, what mechanisms exist to support the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to improve its practices, processes and decision making. (S6O-03206)

Ruth Charteris KC (Solicitor General for Scotland):

There is a strong culture of review and improvement within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates police incidents and does not have a role in relation to the work of COPFS. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman may consider how complaints have been handled but cannot review prosecutorial decisions. HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland provides an essential function in scrutinising practice and identifying potential for improvement through independent evidence-based inspection.

COPFS has a dedicated team that investigates complaints and enables victims to exercise their statutory right of review of certain prosecutorial decisions.

In 2016, my constituent’s daughter, Ms Webster, was charged with an offence by Police Scotland. It took six months for the prosecutor to identify that Ms Webster has informed the police, at the time of the charge, that exculpatory evidence was available. In the further investigation that followed, neither she nor her lawyer was contacted—indeed, I was told by the Lord Advocate that that would have been inappropriate. Two years after that, the case was dropped, within days of the exculpatory evidence being passed to the Crown Office.

Can the Solicitor General not see that an independent review of that case could help to identify errors and improve practices, processes and decision making? Given that the Lord Advocate has, so far, declined that, is there any other mechanism by which such a review could be secured?

Ruth Charteris:

I am aware of the case to which Bob Doris has referred. Although it would be inappropriate to discuss details in the Parliament today, that case has been the subject of extensive review and consideration by the law officers.

COPFS keeps all decisions under review. Ultimately, in this case, when the exculpatory material was received, the original decision to proceed was reviewed. Following that, a decision was made to end the prosecution.

The Lord Advocate has already made an offer to meet Mr Doris and his constituent, and I gladly renew that offer today.

In a letter to me about the Horizon scandal, the Lord Advocate said that

“prosecutors could not and would not have raised proceedings on the basis of the Horizon evidence alone”,

and I am aware that the Crown Office used an independent report that was prepared by the forensic accountancy firm Second Sight Investigations, which was presented to it by the Post Office as corroboration. The director of Second Sight has said that its interim report “revealed system flaws” and problems with the prosecution process. I am therefore keen to understand why the Crown Office was content to use the report as corroboration. If the Solicitor General is not able to say today why the Crown Office still proceeded to use that report as corroboration, will she at least commit to writing to me on that point?

Ruth Charteris:

In a statement to the Parliament in January, the Lord Advocate explained the position of COPFS as to its awareness of flaws in the Horizon system and its approach to prosecutions that were consequent on that.

On our openness to the scrutiny of all decisions, practices and processes, matters are progressing with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the appeal court. A public inquiry is also under way. The Crown has publicly committed to supporting all those processes. I will gladly write to Pauline McNeill to take up in greater detail the points that she has raised.