Justice Committee publishes stage 1 report on apologies legislation

The Justice Committee has today published the Stage 1 report on the Apologies (Scotland) Bill.

This is a Members’ Bill by Scottish Conservative MSP Margaret Mitchell, who said: “I welcome the Justice Committee’s Stage 1 report, which supports the general principles of the Apologies (Scotland) Bill.

“The aim of this bill is to encourage people to give apologies when something goes wrong without the fear of litigation.

“I’m also gratified that the Justice Committee recognises that there is a fear of litigation in certain sectors which can hinder the use of apologies.

“Crucially, the giving of an apology also helps the complainant gain closure. It is therefore to be hoped that making apologies inadmissible in civil court proceedings will allow a culture of apologising to be encouraged.

“I look forward to taking up the committee’s recommendation that I continue to work with the Minister on the Bill.

“I now call on all MSPs to support the bill at Stage 1 and so allow it to move on to the detailed amending stages. I have already indicated my willingness to consider changes to the bill, including to the definition of apology, and to the list of exceptions.

“With good will on all sides, I am now confident we can deliver apologies legislation that will make a real difference, while also addressing some of the concerns raised during the Stage 1 inquiry.”

In June, David Stephenson QC, representing the Faculty of Advocates, took part in a round-table discussion of the bill before the Justice Committee.

Witnesses were asked whether the bill was a good thing or a bad thing.

Mr Stephenson suggested the starting point was to acknowledge that the provisions, if enacted, would take away rights which people currently enjoyed.

Those who wanted to rely on admissions would no longer be able to put them before courts, he said.

“If the effect of the bill would be to disadvantage certain people, where is the balancing advantage, and how confident can we be that there would be a benefit from depriving people of rights they currently have?” asked Mr Stephenson.

“The Faculty’s concern is that at the moment, although similar laws have been introduced all around the world, beginning with Massachusetts in 1985, no-one anywhere seems to have good evidence that it works.”

Mr Stephenson cited a major review in 2014 which had considered the impact of such laws in countries like America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

The paper, by Professor Robyn Carroll, had stated: “The limited research available does not show that apology legislation has worked as a ‘magic wand’. To the contrary, the little data that exists as to the shift in behaviour of potential apologisers, from the field of medical practice, tells us that the legislation has been relatively ineffective.”

Mr Stephenson added: “On what basis are we to be convinced that sufficient benefit would accrue to take away existing rights and limit what courts may look at when they try to determine the truth of what happened?”

Mr Stephenson imagined a letter written by a husband to his wife, apologising for assaulting her and their children.

“Does anyone seriously believe that that letter, because it starts with the word ‘sorry’, should be inadmissible in legal proceedings…relating to the care of the children or protection of that woman from her husband?”