New Petitions

I thank the Public Petitions Committee for giving us this opportunity to highlight the lack of legal rights within the judicial system when convicted families or members of their families sell accounts of their crimes for publication. Having read our submission, the committee will be more than aware of the horrendous effect that such publications have had and are still having on our families.As the legal system stands, innocent murder victims and their families are denied their basic human rights to live free from persecution and aggression. We met a Home Office official called Mrs Keating on 14 May to discuss all the issues that we have raised with the committee. She went to great lengths to point out to us that, under the European convention on human rights, to which the Government is a signatory, convicted murderers and members of their families have the right to free speech and freedom of expression.Mrs Keating also pointed out that convicted murderers must be allowed to make a living and that, if they chose to write about their crimes, that was their right. It seems to us that our dear children's right to rest in peace and our right to try to find some kind of peace of mind are not covered by the European convention on human rights. The convicted murderers and certain unscrupulous journalists know that we, as the innocent murdered victims' families, are powerless to take legal action against them when they deliberately publish false or misleading statements as facts. They say that the pen is mightier than the sword; convicted murderers have learned to use both with the same deadly effect.Prime Minister Tony Blair used his position to stop the publication of Ronnie Kray's diaries as those diaries would have embarrassed certain MPs and members of the royal family. We can only trust that the committee will make a very strong recommendation to the Scottish Executive on our behalf, demanding that we are given the legal right to pursue false and misleading statements that are published by convicted murderers, unscrupulous journalists and publishers.The Scottish Executive has stated that it is putting the victims of crime at the heart of the legal system. We urge the Public Petitions Committee to take a stand on convicted murderers profiting from their crimes by selling their stories for publication at the clear expense of their innocent murdered victims.In conclusion, I would draw the committee's attention to articles 2, 4, 6, 8 and 15 of the European convention, on the legal rights of victims of crime.

The fourth person is Sandra Sullivan.

We actually call it the European convention on offenders' rights because it takes no notice of the needs of victims of crime.

Article 2 of the convention states clearly that everyone has the "right to life". When people write stories that are not true or are factually incorrect, we are powerless to combat them through the courts—mostly for financial reasons. We are the ones who suffer again, and deaths are being caused in innocent murdered victims' families. As members know, I have given plenty of details to each MSP. I have e-mailed them and written to them. I am disappointed to say that not many have responded, but those who have responded fully support what I am saying. Unfortunately, supporting us is not good enough; we need legislation that will allow special courts to be set up. That is not for profit, because we are not looking for personal gain.

They are helped with their writing. Paul Ferris's social worker, whose services are paid for by the public, helped him to write three books, one or two of which have been published. The social worker in question has been able to retire on profits earned from the sale of those books. The public money that is spent in such cases should be used to help victims of crime to rehabilitate themselves.In a letter that I received in January, Mr Wallace stated quite clearly that the victims of crime do not have the right in law to receive help from social services. Offenders must receive such help, because we want to rehabilitate them. Where is the rehabilitation for innocent victims of crimes and their families? We cannot have such double standards. I hope that the committee will push for the Scottish Executive to change its position on providing help to victims of crime. In particular, we should not have to be revictimised by offenders writing and profiting from untruths. If they want to be writers, there are plenty of other subjects about which they can write.

I do not know the exact date on which the legislation was introduced.

I know that in some states, when a book or magazine from which an offender will profit has been published, a special committee that has been set up to help victims writes to victims' families to inform them of that. If they wish, victims' families may pursue the offender, their publisher and anyone who is involved in writing the book or story for the resulting profits. I believe that in America victims' families are allowed to benefit personally from such situations and are given funds to sue the offender. We do not want such powers. We seek not blood money but justice.

We know that we cannot do that.

She was 16 years old.

The report should have been published, because I, along with the other witnesses present today, have had two meetings with the Home Office on that subject.

I am aware of that. Our previous meeting was with Mrs Keating, who is now in charge of the working party.

The original working party, which was chaired by Betty Moxon, was disbanded and she was supposed to report to ministers. The working group accepted a statement from Victims' Voice, the organisation to which all of us belong. We were told that Victims' Voice was the only organisation to submit a statement, but because we were persistent the group accepted that statement from us. When I phoned up to ask what the working party would recommend to the ministers, people refused to tell me. I could no longer speak to any of its members or to Betty Moxon because, I was told, the working party had disbanded.We had hoped that something would be put into the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is currently being debated in Parliament, but that bill deals with only money laundering and drugs money. It does not include criminal memoirs, despite the fact that, after the Mary Bell case, Jack Straw had said that the legislation should be strengthened to prevent what is happening at the moment.

After a meeting that I had with the Home Office in 1991, I received a letter from a Mr John Gilbert. In his letter, Mr Gilbert made it perfectly clear that, by January of this year, I should get a personal reply from the Home Office on the progress of the working party on offenders who profit from their crime. I have heard no word from the Home Office, despite having repeatedly e-mailed and written to it. Unfortunately, Mr Gilbert has moved on to another department and no one seems available or willing to tell us how far the working party has proceeded. However, we are not interested in the Home Office case at the moment. We think that it is time that Scotland took a stand on rights for victims. Scotland should make us proud by showing the Home Office how things should be done.

A victims' charter has been established in England for quite a few years now. At the end of the day, the matter boils down to this: we do not have the funds to take legal action if things are left as they are. We cannot pursue the matter without a special court. No one can take legal action unless they are the Prime Minister or royalty or someone with money behind them.

That would not apply in many of the cases that we have dealt with over the years. We have dealt with other people who have unfortunately suffered at the hands of the press, but we have usually managed to sort out the matter by speaking to the editor of the paper. In such circumstances, the press want another angle so that they can print another story rather than an apology.

It makes families defend their loved ones, because the press want another angle. The newspaper obtains another story at the expense of the victim.

No. We have repeatedly contacted the Home Office. Obviously, we want to be informed at every stage, but we understand from our meeting on 14 May with Mrs Keating that the working party is not discussing offenders profiting from selling accounts of their crimes. It is more concerned with drugs issues. Mrs Keating made that clear when we spoke to her, because she kept referring to the European Court of Human Rights. We wish to refer to that court's case law on victims' rights—our rights to live free from aggression and from being revictimised. It is clear in the European convention on human rights that we should be allowed that. I believe that the Scottish Executive has agreed to that. Legislation to uphold those rights should have been introduced at the beginning of the year. I have a copy of the convention here.

We have gone over that with Mrs Keating at great length and I can assure you that she kept on about the drugs issue. That seems to be the main issue for the Home Office.

It was thrown back at us that, to get what we wanted, we must strive harder, we must go and see the minister and we must do more. Mrs Keating said that criminal memoirs were not covered by the Proceeds of Crime Bill and would not be. The legislation is not there. She said that the Home Office had discussed adding a clause to existing legislation, but she did not say which legislation and would not go into further details. However, she said that it was up to us to continue to put the pressure on. We have worked so hard, but we are sent away and told to do some more work, which is why we are here today. We came to you because we felt that you were listening. I understand what you mean when you say that, if the issue is to be discussed in the Westminster Parliament, you need not bother to discuss it here. However, I agree with Margaret Watson that there is no reason why you should not take the lead. I really do not see why you cannot suggest a clause that could be added to legislation. I do not know what the situation is in Scotland, but I read in 1998 that criminals cannot write stories or memoirs for publication before six years have passed since the crime. I cannot seem to find any more on that, although it was reported in a national newspaper.

In Margaret Watson's case, the person had a story published within a year. In my case, the period was about three or four years.

We understood from our meeting with Mrs Keating that the Government had decided not to do that. She could not tell us anything. She was not saying, "Yes, this is it." All she said was that the Government had thought about adding a clause. It was thrown back at us that we should do something more.

We have nothing in writing.

We are extremely disappointed, as Mrs Keating said that we would be.

I was told that we could not know what the working party was recommending to the ministers. All that we were told was that we would be disappointed. We were not told any more and we did not get any more out of the meeting with Mrs Keating.

Since a year after I lost my daughter.

That was April 1991.

In my case, since 1993.

I have been working on the issue since 1992.

Yes.

I would just like to add one thing that has not been mentioned. There is press interest in the publications because of the notoriety of the crime, not because the people are good writers or have any particular talent. They may have talent, but that is not what is selling their books—their books are selling because of the notoriety. Our theory is that, although we cannot prevent them from writing, they will be more reluctant to write if we can take away any profits.