PE504 is about the publication of criminal memoirs for profit. The petitioners call on the Parliament to take steps to prevent convicted murderers from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of those crimes for publication. The petition, which deals with a very sensitive issue, was prompted by the petitioners' own experiences. An interview with the convicted murderer of their daughter resulted in the publication in a magazine of what they considered to be a misleading account of the crime. The petitioners are concerned that the immediate families of innocent murdered victims are powerless to prevent convicted murderers from giving malicious or deliberately misleading statements in published accounts of their crimes, and that they are unable to challenge such statements in a court of law. They request that the Parliament introduce a number of measures, including the establishment of a special court with powers to enforce legislation to prevent convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes and other matters.Our predecessor committee considered the petition on several occasions. It noted the Executive's view that a UK-wide approach to criminal memoirs would be most effective and that it would not make sense to take any action on the issue in Scotland until the Home Office's proposed consultation had been carried out. However, the committee considered further representations from the petitioners in March and agreed to bring to the Executive's attention a potential loophole in the regulations that govern access to material relating to inmates' crimes. The petitioners alleged that, in the case that prompted the petition, free access to prisoners was given, which allowed the gathering of material that subsequently formed the basis of an article. In response to the petitioners' allegations, the Executive refutes the suggestion that there is a loophole in the rules that govern journalists' access to prisoners.The petitioners informed the committee that they submitted written evidence to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee's report on privacy and media intrusion. They also advised the committee that they believe that a system of double standards is in place, which means that those who can afford to take court action against what they see as libellous or misleading articles in the press can do so, but ordinary families cannot, as they lack the necessary funds.I advise members that it would not be appropriate for the committee to investigate the case in question. That has been made clear to the petitioners on several occasions. I welcome members' views.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John Scott Con 4
- Helen Eadie Lab 2
- Mike Watson Lab 1
The record
8 contributionsI have been reading the paperwork associated with the case and, like many other members, I remember the incident happening 10 years ago. I did not realise that another article had been published as recently as August this year. I have two points to make. First, I accept the Executive's view that it does not make sense to have a separate Scottish position, and a UK-wide position is being adopted. It is stated on page 3 of our committee papers that the Executive has made it clear that it does not believe that a loophole exists, but the article that appeared in the Sunday Mail, although I have not read it, clearly seems to suggest that there is a loophole.I notice in the correspondence that the Press Complaints Commission stated in its letter of 12 August that it is dealing with the matter. Although I know that the issue has been continuing for some time because of that, I think that it would be worth delaying a decision on the petition until we know the outcome of the PCC's consideration. If the PCC were to decide that the article was against its code of practice, the Executive's view that there was no loophole would be shown to be wrong. On that basis, I suggest that we defer consideration of the petition until we have heard from the PCC. Perhaps we could also write to the petitioners, Mr and Mrs Watson. I do not know whether the PCC will keep the clerk informed but, if it will not, perhaps we should let Mr and Mrs Watson know what we are doing and ask them to let us know as soon as they get a reply from the PCC.
We could also ask them to let the committee know the outcome of the PCC's deliberations.
I support that suggestion. I am also inclined to support the view that, as there is a consultation going on at Home Office level, it is worth waiting for the outcome of that consultation. People are trying to inform themselves of all those issues so that they can ensure that any future policy is based on good evidence. What Mike Watson has said supports that aim. Once the Home Office consultation is completed, we will be in a stronger position and better able to say yea or nay as to whether further action is required. Do we know the final date for the Home Office consultation?
The clerk tells me that the consultation has probably not started yet.
My goodness.
In the light of that, it might be more appropriate to revisit the petition when the outcome of the PCC's deliberations becomes known. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 3 Sep 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 3 September 2003 (Morning) Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 36
- New Petitions Petitions · 43
- New Petitions Petitions · 4
- New Petitions Petitions · 5
- New Petitions Petitions · 11
- New Petitions Petitions · 6
- New Petitions Petitions · 4
- New Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 15
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 26
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 11
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Inadmissible Petitions Petitions · 6
- Inadmissible Petitions Petitions · 6
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.