MSPS are expected to pass emergency legislation aimed at tackling coronavirus in a one-day sitting today.
Introduced yesterday by Constitutional Relations Secretary Michael Russell, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill aims to make changes to the legal system, rental sector and public services during the virus crisis.
However, this morning it was announced that proposals to hold trials without a jury in the most serious cases had been binned following legal outcry.
It will be re-introduced as a separate bill on the issue on April 21, when the parliament is next due to sit.
READ MORE: Coronavirus: Concerns over plan to hold trials without juries
This morning, Justice Secretaary Humza Yousaf had tweeted about seeking "compromise" at today's Holyrood session.
He wrote: "As I head to Parliament to debate Emergency Legislation let me give assurance that my colleagues & I are listening to concerns. Where there is compromise & consensus to be found we will seek it. This Bill & the circumstances around it are far too important to do otherwise."
As I head to Parliament to debate Emergency Legislation let me give assurance that my colleagues & I are listening to concerns. Where there is compromise & consensus to be found we will seek it. This Bill & the circumstances around it are far too important to do otherwise.
— Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) April 1, 2020
Late last night the Law Society of Scotland briefing MSPs on the proposals, with president John Mulholland warning while the “unprecedented challenge” of Covid-19 is appreciated, there needs to be further scrutiny of the suggested Scottish Government measures – adding removing juries would have “major implications”.
He said: “Juries have been an important principle of the Scottish Criminal Justice system for hundreds of years. To remove this provision for the most serious of crimes would be a significant step and have major implications.
“We fully appreciate the desire to avoid any backlog in cases which might interfere with the proper administration of justice. However, we have not reached that point and so there is not sufficient justification to warrant trials without jury for serious criminal offences. We believe the case for taking such an extraordinary measure has not been made.”
Mulholland said the society had taken that view after consulting with very experienced solicitors. He said across the legal profession there is “deep concern” over the suggest measures.
He concluded: “We want to continue to work positively with the Scottish Government around the changes which are necessary to our justice system to deal with the spread of Covid-19.
“The past few weeks have proved that we need to be flexible and responsive to emerging situations and creative in our solutions. There are provisions within current legislation which allow flexibility and it is important that these are explored fully before additional measures are introduced.”
MSPs will be asked to grant emergency status to the Bill this morning, which would allow the three-stage process to take place in just one day.
If the legislation is passed on Wednesday, it will become the first in almost a decade to be completed in just one day.
The last time a bill was passed this quickly was the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, which stated police officers would not be able to question suspects without a lawyer being present.
Scotland in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel