SCOTLAND'S most senior prosecutor has branded claims that serious offenders are escaping justice by receiving fiscal fines as "nonsense" – but admitted the controversial measure marks a "culture change" in the way the state deals with crime.
In an exclusive interview with The Scotsman, Elish Angiolini, The Lord Advocate, insisted the fines – which have been handed out to thousands of offenders who would otherwise be prosecuted – is helping end the "national disgrace" of Scotland's overw
helmed courts.
Since March, prosecutors have been able to offer a fine of up to £300 to people accused of offences that would previously have been dealt with in the sheriff court.
The previous maximum fine a fiscal could impose was £100. The move was intended to deliver swift justice to offenders who would otherwise be taken to court only to end up many months later with a fine, while allowing courts to concentrate on serious criminals.
But it has been mired in controversy, with reports of violent offenders escaping prosecution leading to a barrage of "soft touch Scotland" claims from politicians. In one incident, which saw a care nurse allegedly glassed in a violent attack by two women in a pub, the culprits received £150 fines each.
Mrs Angiolini suggested the reported concern over fiscal fines was largely media hype.
"There has been the suggestion of widespread concern in newspapers, but I think this sometimes is a euphemism for the journalist being concerned.
She added: "I think there have been two or three (cases] that have been reported and recycled somewhat." and she
branded as "nonsense" another reported case about a "sex fiend" receiving a fiscal fine. "There have been inaccuracies in what's been reported. People don't have police reports, they don't know what fiscals are looking at."
She said an inspection later this year would determine whether fiscal fines were being appropriately used.
"We will look at whether it requires to be adjusted or tightened up. But what I can provide is an assurance that it is sensible, measured, and deals with low level crime at the level which would be dealt with at the bottom of the sheriff court, which is precisely what Parliament intended."
The Lord Advocate added: "All violence is repugnant. But the reality is a very significant proportion of violence at the lesser end would be dealt with by fine."
But she admitted that fiscal fines – who do not result in the offenders receiving a criminal record – requires a "change of mindset".
"When I started as a prosecutor 25 years ago, it was either 'prosecute or not'. The community expects much more now, it expects us to try and solve the problem. They expect us to do more than process cases."
Between March and June, cases disposed of in court have increased by nearly a third, while 2,000 witnesses have been spared having to give evidence.
But John McGovern, secretary of the Glasgow Bar Association, said he had serious misgivings about the use of fiscal fines, describing them as an "invoice" for committing violent crime.
"I'm not sure I share the Lord Advocate's belief that only minor matters are being diverted," he said.
BACKGROUNDTHE maximum fine a fiscal can impose was raised from £100 to £300 in March.
Several thousand offenders have been offered a fine as an alternative to prosecution in the courts since.
It does not result in a criminal record, and can be referred to in court for up to two years.
If an accused wishes to challenge the fine, it must be done in writing and may result in them being taken to court.
The full article contains 606 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
