« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
2. Review strategy and method of working
2.1 My remit from the Scottish Ministers was a personal one and the analysis and conclusions in this report are my own. However, while responsibility for the content of the report rests with me, the review has benefited from a great variety of assistance for which I am extremely grateful.
Review Team
2.2 In my research and consultations and in the preparation of this report, I was assisted by a small review team, led by Bill Barron, from the Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Directorate. Stuart Laurie, Detective Chief Inspector at Strathclyde Police, worked full time with the team throughout the period of the review and Angela Farrell, Principal Procurator Fiscal Depute at the Crown Office, worked with the team on a part-time basis.
2.3 Throughout the course of the review, each member of the team contributed suggestions and insights which were invaluable in our discussions. In particular, Stuart Laurie and Angela Farrell brought knowledge and insight into the practicalities of fulfilling the duty of disclosure within the police and the COPFS respectively.
Reference Group
2.4 A Reference Group provided invaluable additional support. It consisted of the undernoted, individuals or representatives of organisations with a close involvement in the criminal justice process. The members of the group were:-
Kenneth Boyd, Professor of Medical Ethics, University of Edinburgh
Jim Brisbane, Deputy Crown Agent, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Gerry BrownCBE, Solicitor Advocate, Member of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland
Norman Dowie, formerly Deputy Principal Clerk of Justiciary
Louise Johnson, National Legal Issues Worker, Scottish Women's Aid
Brian McConnachie Q.C., Principal Advocate Depute, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Murray Macara, Solicitor Advocate, Society of Solicitor Advocates
Sir Ken Macdonald Q.C., Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and Director of Public Prosecutions ( DPP), England and Wales
Bruce McKain, Director of Public Affairs, Faculty of Advocates
Ewen MacLellan, Chief Superintendent, Strathclyde Police, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
Bill McVicar, Chair of Criminal Law Committee, the Law Society of Scotland
John Malcolm, Assistant Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
Roma Menlowe, Deputy Director of Criminal Procedure, Scottish Executive
Tom Murray, Director of Legal Services and Applications, Scottish Legal Aid Board
Sheriff Alistair Noble
Neil Paterson, Head of Operations, Victim Support Scotland
Fiona Raitt, Professor of Evidence and Social Justice, University of Dundee
Alastair Sim, Director of Policy, Scottish Courts Service
John Scott, Solicitor Advocate
Maggie Scott Q.C., Faculty of Advocates
Chris Shead, Faculty of Advocates
Gerard Sinclair, Chief Executive, Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
John Whiting, Senior Investigation Manager, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
2.5 I am also grateful to those who substituted at one or more meetings, namely:
Nigel Gibbs, Policy Advisor, Policy Directorate, Crown Prosecution Service, England and Wales
Alan McCreadie, Law Society of Scotland
Stephen McGowan, Criminal Procedure Division, Scottish Executive
Owen Mullan, Scottish Legal Aid Board
Ruaraidh Nicolson, Chief Superintendent, Strathclyde Police, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
2.6 We met on 4 occasions and the group provided an excellent sounding board for emerging ideas. However, their role was not confined solely to that and positive suggestions, which were made at the meetings, have been adopted at points within the report.
Consultations
2.7 When my appointment to carry out the review was announced on 3 November 2006, I invited written comments from anyone with experience of, or interest in disclosure issues. I also wrote to a number of organisations and individuals whom I thought likely to have a particular interest in my remit. I had a website created which outlined the remit and published an interim position paper during the review, and this generated constructive feedback from a number of individuals and organisations. I gratefully acknowledge the written comments and submissions from a wide variety of individuals and organisations throughout the period of the review.
2.8 I did not attempt a formal public consultation of the kind which has become customary in leading up to legislation. I did, however, arrange meetings with advocates and solicitors practising in both Scotland and England. I had several discussions with representatives of the Faculty of Advocates and I met members of the Glasgow Bar Association. I met with representatives of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and had discussions with a number of people who represent victims and witnesses. I met with police officers and representatives of Revenue and Customs Prosecution. I also met representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association in England. In addition the review team also met with a number of professionals involved in the criminal justice system, reporting back to me on issues raised.
Result
2.9 I believe that, by making contact with such a wide range of those with practical experience rather than relying on formal written comment or formal oral evidence, I received the frankest account possible of the difficulties currently affecting the criminal justice system in relation to disclosure. I thank all who made submissions, orally or in writing, and all who assisted and supported the work of the Review.
« Previous | Contents | Next »