Colleagues will remember that the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Act 2022 included a number of temporary justice measures to ensure that our justice system was able to respond to the acute impact of the pandemic. Although there has been significant progress towards recovery, we still have some way to go. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the remaining measures for one final year, so that they stay in effect until the end of 30 November 2025, and that move has been backed by our justice partners.
There has been considerable progress in reducing the backlog of cases in the courts, with the number of outstanding scheduled trials falling by more than 45 per cent between January 2022 and September 2024. However, modelling by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service anticipates that backlogs and solemn trials will continue above the target baseline until 2026-27. Therefore, these measures will ensure that court resources are used efficiently.
The availability of the higher maximum fiscal fine means that, where appropriate, more summary cases can be diverted from prosecution, reducing the number of cases that go to court. We are talking about cases that, if they were not subject to a fiscal fine, would potentially go to a justice of the peace court and, in all likelihood, would be subject to a financial penalty. There is a pragmatic reason for the use of fiscal fines.
After my recent evidence session with the Criminal Justice Committee, I wrote a follow-up letter, on 24 October, outlining further information and presenting particular data to the committee. Parliament might want to be aware that the Crown Office also regularly updates Parliament on a range of matters relating to its functions.
Turning to the two extended time limits, those are for one further year only. There is no power to extend them beyond next year, and we are not introducing primary legislation to extend them. These regulations are necessary to increase the courts’ capacity to hear trials by, again, ensuring that the resources are not diverted to holding large numbers of procedural hearings to extend time limits on an individual case-by-case basis. I am sure that Parliament does not want to risk compromising the courts’ capacity to focus on progressing trials and reducing the backlog. As the Lord Advocate highlighted to members on 10 October, removal of the time limits right now would present a serious risk that victims and witnesses might be deprived of their access to justice.
To conclude, I acknowledge Mr Kerr’s comments. There are indeed a limited number of these temporary measures that are being baked into permanent legislation that has been introduced to Parliament. I believe that the regulations are a package and are crucial to assisting our continued recovery, and I commend the motion to Parliament.