I add my support for Amendment 38 in the name of Russell Findlay. He has made some salient and well-presented points about the nature of information that victims get or do not get, as the case may be, and I note his comments.

My amendments in this group are in a similar vein but, rather than being related to plea deals, they pertain to where the Crown has decided to drop a case—in other words, to decisions not to prosecute, as they are more commonly known.

Both my amendments seek to achieve the same thing, but in slightly different ways—and I will happily explain that.

Amendment 64 would give victims a right to be informed by prosecutors when a decision has been made not to prosecute an alleged offender or to discontinue the proceedings against them. It does so by adding a new section to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 that states that, where a prosecutor decides to discontinue prosecution or not to prosecute a case,

“the prosecutor must, as soon as reasonably practicable, inform”

the victim.

Amendment 65 is materially similar—it is almost identical—but it includes an extra caveat, which says:

“unless the prosecutor considers that it would be inappropriate to do so.”

That gives the prosecutor some necessary flexibility if they deem it appropriate. For example, in complex cases, that information might put the alleged offender’s safety at risk, where they have been identified, or it might compromise future, simultaneous or concurrent investigations into the same alleged offender.

The question here is similar to what Russell Findlay was saying about plea deals and the lack of transparency. Why do we need the amendment or a version of it? The reality is that it is too often the case that victims are simply not informed that their case has been dropped or that a decision has been made not to continue prosecution. At that point, many people will not have had the opportunity to opt in to any victim notification scheme, perhaps because cases are not yet live in the system, at that stage when the Crown has information from Police Scotland and is considering whether to pursue a case.

There are many reasons why the Crown may drop a case: there might be a lack of evidence, or it might believe that the case might not be successful. If someone has reported the crime and the Crown decides, for whatever reason, that it will not proceed with the case, the person who has been identified as a potential victim ought to have the right to know that. We might expect that to be the case already but, sadly, the reality is that it is not the case. Too many cases are dropped or discontinued, and the victim is the last person to find out, if they find out at all.

The Cabinet secretary suggests that, because I have failed to provide an opt-out Clause in my amendments, those amendments are not “trauma informed”. That concern is not shared by Victim Support Scotland, which, I would say, knows quite a lot about trauma-informed justice practice. It is both my and Victim Support Scotland’s assertion that amendment 64 represents the strongest possible option

“by creating a broad, unconditional notification duty covering both non-prosecution and discontinuance.”

My amendment on the matter had very broad public support when I consulted on it. Back in 2021, 84 per cent of respondents were fully supportive of my proposal, when I consulted on my proposed victims, criminal justice and fatal accident inquiries (Scotland) bill, that all victims should have the right to be notified of a decision not to prosecute their case.

I wish to put this on the record, because I hope that members will consider their opinion on it: VSS has stated that it strongly believes that it should not be for a victim of a crime or their family to actively seek information about whether the crime has been prosecuted; it should be for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or its representatives to proactively contact victims to inform them of such decisions. In cases where the victims are not told, they cannot make use of their right to appeal such decisions in situations where it could be legitimate to do so. We all know the reality that very few victims go on to appeal decisions not to prosecute, and the success rate of that is incredibly low—in fact, it is staggeringly low.

Amendment 101, in Sharon Dowey’s name, would give an expanded version of what I am seeking to achieve by offering the so-called opt-out clause that the Government said was not in my amendment 64. I am happy to support Sharon Dowey’s amendment 101 if mine does not pass.

Amendment 64 is not a new amendment. It was brought before the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 2 in March this year. The reality is that, if there had been any competency issues with its wording, or if there had been any other issues that could have been flagged, addressed or even raised by the Government ahead of today, they were not.

Ultimately, it would have been preferable if the Government had lodged amendments to provide a workable solution to the very live issue of victims not being notified of decisions not to prosecute. However, in its failure to do so, I urge the Parliament to back my amendments in the group, as has been requested by Victim Support Scotland.

The only other amendment that I will mention is amendment 38, because I do not believe that it is a big ask. Indeed, the whole package of amendments in the group should be supported accordingly.