Parliament Workbench
Data: Official Report to 12 Nov 2026

Official Report · Committee

New Petitions

Trials and Sentencing (Disclosure of Occupations) (PE1572)

Tuesday 22 September 2015 Public Petitions Committee About 11:00–11:15 Petitions 39 contributions · 5 speakers

Speakers

Choose an MSP to read only their contributions

The record

39 contributions
Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

Our third and final new petition is PE1572 by Parveen Haq on occupational disclosure in trials and sentencing. Members again have a note from the clerk—it is paper PPC/S4/15/15/4—as well as the petition and the SPICe briefing.

I welcome to the meeting the petitioner, who is accompanied by Nadim Ahmed, and I invite her to make a short opening statement of around five minutes on what her petition seeks to achieve. After that, I will open it up to questions from committee members.

Over to you, Ms Haq.

Parveen Haq
link

Thank you very much.

My name is Parveen Haq, and I am currently employed by the national health service as a senior physiotherapist in Clydebank. I have come along today with my nephew, Nadim Ahmed, who is the main reason for my submitting the petition in the first place.

The aim of the petition before the committee is to ensure that a person’s occupation is not revealed in court during a trial, especially when the person in question holds a position of trust. I feel that, if the person in question is accused of a crime that does not involve their occupation, that occupation should not be revealed to the court. Basically, when it is revealed, the person gets a harsher sentence.

According to research that I have done on the matter, MPs, police officers and lawyers receive harsher sentences when convicted by the court, but those sentences are dramatically reduced on appeal. They get harsher sentences in the first place because of their occupation, no matter what the crime is but especially when the crime is of a domestic nature and is nothing whatsoever to do with their occupation. By the time the matter gets to the appeal court, the person has lost their job and, because they do not have that standing any more, the sentence is drastically reduced.

The background to the petition is that my nephew was accused of a domestic crime that was outwith his police duties; in other words, it was nothing to do with the police at all. The reason why the court gave him a harsh sentence was his occupation, which he lost as a result; when he went to the appeal court, his sentence was dramatically reduced because he was no longer a police officer.

I have submitted this petition in the hope that the Scottish Parliament can introduce a law to prevent the occupations of accused individuals from being revealed not only in the courtroom itself but right at the start of proceedings when the case is lodged with the Crown Office. I hope that such a move will allow each individual to receive a fair trial in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

Okay. I will now open up the discussion to questions from committee members.

Kenny MacAskill SNP Edinburgh Eastern
link

There is a difference between the trial itself and the sentencing. Do you not accept that at one stage someone has not been convicted of anything but that, once they have been convicted, their occupation is a material factor for the court?

Parveen Haq
link

Why would it be?

Kenny MacAskill SNP Edinburgh Eastern
link

Because the court has to take into account who someone is, where they live, their age, their income, their occupation and so on. Surely whether the person in question is rich or poor is a material factor; it depends upon the category and the nature of the job. Do you also not accept that in some jobs there is an area of trust? For example, if someone is, say, a nurse or a doctor and they are stopped for drink driving, notification will be made, because it is felt that in such occupations there is an area of trust. Do you not think that in some occupations there is a trust implication and that the authorities that govern them are entitled to know about such matters?

Parveen Haq
link

There is an area of trust, but do you not think that there is an area of trust in most occupations? What if I were, for example, a shopkeeper who was selling you something? Is there not an area of trust in my selling you an item at the value at which it should be sold? In my opinion, there is an area of trust in everything. Are we saying that there is no area of trust with a person who is unemployed and does not have an occupation?

Kenny MacAskill SNP Edinburgh Eastern
link

You are right to say that everything has an aspect of trust to it. However, if a postman fails to deliver the mail, that is a serious charge; if they misbehave at a football game, the fact that they are a postman might be viewed as irrelevant. A lot of this is about context and whether someone has failed in their duties.

There is a fundamental jurisprudential view of the issue. Sentencing is not about vengeance but it is about atonement and there is an element of public shaming. We do not put people in the stocks but the reason why we allow newspapers to report court proceedings is that people in the community are entitled to know that Mr or Miss X, who lives at such-and-such an address and works at such-and-such, has committed an offence. The community is entitled to know who has committed an offence in their area.

Parveen Haq
link

Do you feel that the papers always tell the truth?

Kenny MacAskill SNP Edinburgh Eastern
link

Most certainly not, but keeping them out is a separate issue.

Part of the purpose of court proceedings is about public shaming. I do not necessarily ever want to wear a horse-hair wig, but the reason why a magistrate of the court sits up there is so that they can say, “You have committed a crime in your community and I am imposing some retribution, collectively.”

Do you not think that the public are entitled to know who the individual in question is? That is why we allow local newspapers into court. It dissuades people from committing a crime. Sometimes, what is important to someone is not the £150 fine but the fact that all their neighbours and friends have seen that they misbehaved on Friday night.

Parveen Haq
link

That is fine in itself, but my petition is not about that. My petition is about the fact that people in positions of trust or who have certain occupations, such as police officers, lawyers and MPs, are given harsher sentences. If you compare convictions and crimes, you will see that people who are in positions of trust are more likely to be given custodial sentences, even for first offences, than unemployed people who have committed similar crimes, who are more likely be let off with a suspended sentence.

My petition is not to stop newspapers from spreading the news to friends and family; it is aimed at promoting fairness, equality and human rights. I want to ensure that everyone is treated the same. If Joe Bloggs has done something and PC Bloggs has done something similar, their sentencing should be the same, and they should be named and shamed in the same way. Joe Bloggs has lost nothing—he has not got a job—but PC Bloggs has lost his job. Is that not enough? Do they also have to be given a custodial sentence? My research has revealed to me that no police officer, MP or lawyer who has stood before the court has got off with a suspended sentence, community service or a fine. Mostly, they get a custodial sentence.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland
link

I am not a lawyer, so I do not bring that perspective to the discussion.

When I read the petition, I was quite intrigued by the proposal but it prompted me to wonder whether it might not create a fresh inequality, because some people’s occupations are such that their occupation will be known whether or not it is included in the information that is presented to the court. That would create an inequality in the sense that the occupation of a number of people would be understood or would become known during the proceedings, but the occupation of someone with a job that does not filter into the public domain would not. How fair would that be? I do not suppose that, if the person’s occupation became known, the judge could suspend the trial or hold it somewhere else. It struck me that the proposal would simply become an obstacle to the element of justice.

I take the point that you make about sentencing, but I come back to Mr MacAskill’s point. In a sense, the appeals process seeks to address any inequality in sentencing that might exist, and I am concerned about the possibility that your way of dealing with the perceived inequality might not create a new inequality in its own way.

Parveen Haq
link

I am saying that it does not matter whether the whole court knows the occupation of the person. What I am saying is that the lawyers, the procurator fiscal and the judge should not hold that person’s occupation against them. It is fine that they know the occupation, but that should have nothing to do with the sentencing. The judge should not say that someone is getting a certain sentence because they are a lawyer or a policeman. I have no issue with newspapers revealing someone’s occupation but the person who is deciding the case—the sheriff, the judge or whoever—should not hold in their mind the view that they are going to impose a harsher sentence because of the person’s occupation.

I do not want occupations to be hidden; they can be revealed. However, judges or whoever makes the decision in a case should be taught to put information about someone’s occupation to one side and look only at the case, especially when it has nothing to do with the person’s occupation.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

Good morning. You referred to the example of an unemployed person being sentenced. I am sure that people in the five postal code districts in Glasgow that the majority of the population of Barlinnie prison comes from would be interested to find out that they were less likely to be jailed than somebody from elsewhere. The reality is, though, that Barlinnie is full of people from the five most deprived communities in Glasgow.

For me, trust is the issue here, as we put faith in certain groups of people because of their status in society. You mentioned three such groups, Ms Haq: MPs, lawyers and police officers. If we lose trust in individuals from such groups, how do we deal with them? As part of your argument, you referred to the issue of domestic crime. However, if somebody found guilty of drink driving or embezzlement is a police officer, a lawyer, an MP or a member of the Scottish Parliament, how do we want to deal with such an individual? How do we want to highlight such cases in our society?

We expect MPs and MSPs to pass the legislation that we expect society to abide by; we expect those who are lawyers to work through that legislation to represent people in court or, in another role, to pass judgment on individuals; and we expect police officers to enforce the law. Those three groups in particular are trusted by society to carry out certain duties on behalf of society. How do you think we should treat individuals from those groups when they break the law? Should we be more lenient with them? Or should the court system treat them, as you argue happens at the moment, more harshly than those from other groups in society? How should we punish those individuals, who we hold in high esteem and trust to carry out certain work in society, conferring on them the role of ensuring that people in society observe the rules, legislation and laws that society makes?

Parveen Haq
link

Somebody who holds a position of trust can be accused of doing something wrong like drink driving, but at the end of the day they are only human and make mistakes like everybody else. You would think that, because they held a position of trust, the courts would be lenient with them. However, they are not lenient with them and I would not expect them to be. I would expect the sentencing to be the same for anybody who is caught drink driving—that is what I am arguing.

I do not think that the courts should be more lenient on those who hold a position of trust. However, before the event behind the petition happened to us, I assumed that the courts would be more lenient on people who held a position of trust. They do not, though; they go the other way. But why? Because they are punishing those individuals. However, as I have said, is it not punishment enough to give them the same sentence as everybody else?

You mentioned Barlinnie, Mr Wilson—yes, it is full of criminals from five postcode areas, but they are not in there for their first offence; they are in there for their 10th, 12th or 15th offence. For their first, second and third offences, they get told that a fine, a suspended sentence or a community sentence is fine. Those in Barlinnie are not in there for their first conviction; they are in there because of how many convictions they have had. People who hold a position of trust and are convicted of a first offence should be treated like anyone else convicted of their first offence. I can understand a repeat offence being treated differently, but anybody can make a mistake for a first offence.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

You are implying that, if a police officer, a lawyer or an MP has a first offence, they are more likely to find themselves being imprisoned. Is that the evidence that you have found?

Parveen Haq
link

Yes.

Parveen Haq
link

I have done research. Basically, I have not come across MPs, but I have come across lawyers. You can read the news stories. If you do a Google search, you will be able to see information about police officers getting custodial sentences when they have been arrested, no matter for what. That is fine enough if the offence was committed on duty, but in my eyes the only person who is in their occupation 24/7 is a doctor. When a person becomes a doctor, their title changes to “Dr”. When somebody is having a heart attack on a flight, a doctor or somebody who can do first aid will be called for. If two people are fighting on an aeroplane, people will not call for a police officer or a justice person to come and help.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

You have based your evidence on a Google search.

Parveen Haq
link

No—newspapers. The learned gentleman, Kenny MacAskill, highlighted newspapers and the need to know stories. Read the newspapers; I have read newspapers.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

What you are saying is that your evidence from Google searches and newspapers—

Parveen Haq
link

It is not just from newspapers. I have researched High Court and sheriff court cases. It is not just from Google and newspapers.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

If a case appears before the High Court, it is of such a serious nature that a custodial sentence may be the only action that can be taken.

Parveen Haq
link

But not in the sheriff court.

John Wilson Ind Central Scotland
link

I am trying to get down to the evidence that what you say is based on. I have anecdotal evidence that some people who are held in trust are not prosecuted but are basically taken before their various associations. Two weeks ago, we had a case in which a doctor decided to withdraw himself from the register because he was found not to have been carrying out operations. No action was taken against that doctor. The medical profession could not take action against him, because he had removed himself from the register.

It can be argued that, in different parts of society, people find their way round the law and do not face the court process to be charged or face punishment. I certainly ask the committee to investigate further the number of cases from the various professions that you have indicated in which people have found themselves facing a custodial sentence for a minor first offence. That is your assertion.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland
link

I am sorry to come back to this issue, but I thought that my recollection was flawed. I have just looked at the petition again and would like to quote two sentences from it. It says:

“I am putting this petition forward as I think that new laws should be introduced, which prevent people’s occupation from being disclosed in a court of law, especially if the accusations have nothing to do with the occupation”

and

“This petition is in order that evidential law can be changed and when a case is taken to court, a person’s occupation should not be revealed unless that occupation has been used as part of the crime.”

I refer to my earlier point. Maybe you are defining the petition more narrowly than that suggests. The petition suggests that a person’s occupation should not be known to the court, but I made the point that that could create an inequality, as certain people’s occupations might be known. Are you narrowing the petition simply to say that, at the point when sentencing is being taken into account, the occupation should not bear relevance to the sentence that is awarded?

Parveen Haq
link

No. I am saying that the occupation should not be revealed. You asked me about what would happen if people found out. If people find out, they find out, but I am saying that the lawyers in the case—the procurator fiscal or the sheriff—should not repeatedly mention in the case that the person has such and such an occupation. Whether they know his occupation is another thing; I am saying that it should not be revealed to everybody. Whether everybody who is sitting in the court knows the person’s occupation is beside the point. Basically, they should not make a big thing of the fact that the person holds a position, as that fact is then used.

Jackson Carlaw Con West Scotland
link

My point was that the proposal would create a fresh inequality, because people who weighed up the evidence in one case and knew what somebody’s occupation was might be affected by that knowledge, but that might not be known in an entirely similar case, and that would create an inequality in the outcome.

Parveen Haq
link

That is what I am trying to say: they should not know that. If there are two similar cases in one of which the occupation is known and in one of which it is not, why would people hold that as an aggravating factor in their mind?

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

I do not think that we are going to get agreement.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

We need to determine how to take the petition forward, if that is what the committee wants to do.

Kenny MacAskill SNP Edinburgh Eastern
link

I think that the Scottish Government has now found the money for a sentencing council, which the Parliament supported and agreed to a good few years back. It seems to me that this is a jurisprudential matter. There are difficulties in what can be done when somebody is charged. There are those who are notified automatically because of their status, but you cannot stop the process, because all that the court produces is a document that says a name and address. It does not say the occupation, although, as Jackson Carlaw says, it might be known.

The petition certainly raises issues to do with sentencing. We should find out whether the sentencing council is about to be established. My understanding is that it is in the process of being set up with legal and lay members, and it may be the best port of call.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

We will take the petition forward in the way that Kenny MacAskill suggested, get the response to the petitioners, and consider the petition again at a future point. I thank the petitioners for lodging the petition and enabling the discussion to take place.

Parveen Haq
link

Thank you very much for having us.

Michael McMahon Lab The Convener · Uddingston and Bellshill
link

I suspend the meeting for five minutes to give people a break.

11:26 Meeting suspended.

11:30 On resuming—

In this meeting

Everything on 22 Sep 2015 →
  1. 10:00 Interests Procedure · 2
  2. 10:00 Convener Procedure · 4
  3. 10:00 New Petitions Petitions · 30
  4. 10:15 New Petitions Petitions · 50
  5. 11:00 New Petitions Petitions · 39
  6. 11:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 9
  7. 11:15 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
  8. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 11
  9. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 7
  10. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
  11. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4
  12. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 3
  13. 11:45 Continued Petitions Petitions · 4

The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.