Just how many counts of domestic abuse does a man have to be charged with to face a jury in this country?
Minutes ago, the newswires broke the news that Sheriff Katherine Mackie has convicted Bill Walker, who represents Dunfermline in the Scottish Parliament, of over twenty counts of assault and another of breach of the peace, committed against a string of his former wives and partners, and in one case, a step-daughter. He is due to be sentenced later in September.
As I detailed back when the trial closed, however, even if Sheriff Mackie imposes the severest penalty she has within her powers on Walker for these offences - a twelve month prison term - he won't lose his seat.
That's down to a quirk of electoral law, but it is also a foreseeable outcome of the decision to prosecute him in the sheriff court, without a jury. If convicted by a jury of his peers, Walker could have faced anything up five years in prison, including a sentence which would have deprived him of his seat in parliament. Instead, whether or not he resigns office is now governed entirely by the sheen of his brass neck, and the pressure brought to bear upon him.
That's down to a quirk of electoral law, but it is also a foreseeable outcome of the decision to prosecute him in the sheriff court, without a jury. If convicted by a jury of his peers, Walker could have faced anything up five years in prison, including a sentence which would have deprived him of his seat in parliament. Instead, whether or not he resigns office is now governed entirely by the sheen of his brass neck, and the pressure brought to bear upon him.
But significant questions must be asked of prosecutors' decisions here too. Unlike many cases in England and Wales, it is generally for the
Procurator Fiscal to select the forum for prosecutions in Scotland. So why the devil did the Crown decide to prosecute Walker only summarily, given the scale of the MSP's offending and the numbers of people he has offended against? If twenty four corroborated and credible charges of assault and breach of the peace isn't sufficient, I'm blowed if I know what is.
It will be for Sheriff Mackie to discern what sentence she determines is proper, on the basis of the evidence before her. I find it difficult to understand, however, why the Procurator Fiscal decided this as a case which did not warrant being placed before a jury. The Solicitor-General, Lesley Thomson said recently that:
It will be for Sheriff Mackie to discern what sentence she determines is proper, on the basis of the evidence before her. I find it difficult to understand, however, why the Procurator Fiscal decided this as a case which did not warrant being placed before a jury. The Solicitor-General, Lesley Thomson said recently that:
"A woman may have been assaulted approximately 30 times before she contacts the police – we recognise that there are huge barriers to women seeking assistance in such cases. We know that the pattern of violence used in this insidious type of abuse is controlled and controlling and the abuser will often wait until he is alone with his victim, or perhaps when the only witnesses are her young children."
What sort of message does a summary prosecution send out here, in this very visible case concerning a very public figure's sustained physical and emotional abuse, spanning decades? Is that really zero tolerance?
I must admit, this is an aspect of Scottish law about which I'm both ignorant and baffled. The seriousness of the allegations seems to me, on the most basic layman level, to require a full jury trial, and the accompanying sentence potential, in the interests of both defendant and plaintiffs.
ReplyDeleteRevStu,
ReplyDeleteIt is one of the distinctions between Scottish and English criminal procedure which few folk are aware of. People talk, in general terms, about a right to trial by jury, but in Scotland, save for a few pleas of the crown (murder, rape, etc) you have no right whatever to be tried by your peers, and the PF decides which Beak you'll be up before.
On the other hand, that decision means that accused folk can't opt for the court with greater sentencing powers. Off the top of my head, the same goes for Crown courts and Magistrates courts in England. The former can jail folk for longer than the latter.
Most folk I've spoken about this with today have agreed with you. A curious decision, by Scottish prosecutors.
"What sort of message does a summary prosecution send out here...?" good question.
ReplyDeleteAnd what sort of message does it send out about the calibre of SNP candidates when the pary was told of Walker's behaviour and character but still considered him the best available in Dunfermline and allowed him to be elected in our name?
Well i think it's a tad harsh to single out the SNP in that respect - we can all think of people across the board who in retrospect should never have been adopted as a candidate.
DeleteI think his adoption illustrates an issue that should concern us all, that the bar seems set pretty low for Holyrood, as it can for Westminster for that matter - I can think of two Labour MPs I have known not fit to represent anybody. There are some fine MSPs of course - Sandra White has done well by me - but the proportion of time servers, incompetents and yes, even the odd psychopath, is a deep worry. It wasn't supposed to be this way.
The word "harsh" isn't what you're looking for, Edwin. It's the phrase "cheap petty political pointscoring".
DeleteI prefer 'harsh' - "cheap petty political pointscoring" is, sadly, a given in what passes for much of indy debate - as we all know, had Walker been Labour the same pointscoring would be going on.
DeleteIs that true, though? Did the SNP leap to capitalise on the Gordon Matheson sex business in the way Labour have sought to beat the SNP with the Walker stick? I seem to recall the opposite being the case.
DeleteThe two cases are not comparable, not in the slightest. Matheson's behaviour belongs to the private realm (as the cops concluded), Walker's behaviour was criminal.
DeleteThat smacks of post-rationalisation to me. As I recall, the story was in the news well before the police decided not to prosecute. Committing sex acts in public absolutely IS a crime.
DeleteNonetheless the cops decided it was none of their business - a private matter rather than one of public order (I will resist googling 'dogging' and prosecution)
DeleteI think any rational being would accept that the amount of private morality among Labour and SNP people and indeed all parties must surely be about the same - I am not privy to any inside information or even rumours about private frolics but I think it probable that behaviour at least comparable to Matheson's must occur within other parties.
That is to say, any party worker tempted to make a muckle of a Matheson would likely pause and reflect on the likelihood of swift retaliation. In any case, the SNP wisely - graciously even - decided to make nothing of it.
As for bloody Walker, if a Labour version emerged, the very dogs in the street know the SNP would be after Labour all guns a-blazin'.
An odd thought crossed my mind,would a woman sheriff be more inclined to find him guilty rather than a jury who may have found him,the victim,of a small conspiracy? Some man came from the woodwork to say he had contacted the SNP about Walker and how he was not suitable for election,and of course he says he went to Nicola's office and an aide took all the information,sorry but this is another attack on the SNP and nothing less.Walker has been found guilty by a single sheriff but a jury trial would have been much better I think,more convincing and not open to further conjecture.
ReplyDeleteCharles,
DeleteI don't really think so. From the press reports (and I'm conscious these aren't an ideal basis to come to a full view), Walker's defence was pretty feeble, amounting to a couple of invocations of self-defence, and much more "infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy." I doubt a jury would buy that either. I don't see this as an attack on the SNP either. Walker is guilty as hell, and the party will have to deal with that.
As to the Sturgeon affair, I don't really know enough about it to comment. It does seem concerning, however, that credible complaints about a party candidate's background should just go walkabout.
What's the alternative? Ruin a potential candidate's chances on the basis of hearsay not considered worthy of going to the police with?
DeleteWhat are the SNP meant to do? If they checked up and found there were no charges, it's just tittle-tattle and perhaps groundless smearing, and the day that sort of thing starts to get taken into account is a bad day for all of us.
That he proved to be guilty in the end is neither here nor there. I don't see how the SNP had any choice but to discount the allegations. They're not the police or the courts. It's not their place to decide guilt or innocence.
I'm still uneasy with the fact that someone went to political parties rather than the law. If someone mugs me I don't call the Liberal Democrats. I'd quite like to hear an explanation of that at some point along the line.
Also, the unintended consequence of summary prosecution is that the case can't be remitted to the High Court for sentence. Somebody at Crown Office has cocked up.
ReplyDeleteRight you are. Have had to put a few folk on twitter right, who were under the impression that you are always remit up the judicial chain for sentencing. Perhaps a bit of law reform for the Scottish Parliament to consider, that. It doesn't seem obvious to me that the law should recognise that the Crown will sometimes get the venue wrong (in the judicial opinion) when it comes to solemn proceedings, but will never do so in a summary case, as here.
Delete