Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 233 aims to remove the barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from serving on criminal juries.

The goal of amendment 233 is to ensure that jurors with communication differences who are deaf and require a British Sign Language interpreter can fully participate in jury deliberations. That would foster more inclusive and accessible justice systems for all.

The current challenge is that only jurors are allowed to be present during jury deliberations, which excludes people who need communication support such as BSL interpreters from fully participating.

For a bit of background, in 2018, a group chaired by Lord Matthews recommended considering the issue; the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service echoed that call in December 2023, recommending that legislation be amended to allow approved persons, such as BSL interpreters, to support jurors during deliberations.

The amendment seeks to insert the proposed section 88A into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, enabling the court to appoint a communications supporter for jurors who need assistance due to a physical disability. The supporter would be present during deliberations, ensuring that the juror can participate effectively. The amendment also seeks to ensure that multiple supporters can be appointed if needed, and that they can take an oath to preserve the integrity of the trial.

Before appointing a supporter, the court would have the opportunity to hear from the prosecution and defence on whether the case was appropriate for the juror—for example, if the case involved audio recordings where hearing the tone was important, a deaf juror might not be suitable.

Amendment 233 seeks to empower judges to decide on a case-by-case basis, which ensures flexibility and judicial discretion. It does not mandate the appointment of a supporter in every case but provides the option for judges to consider communications support where appropriate. That ensures fairness and accessibility when needed.

The SCTS’s letter to the committee raised concerns about space constraints in courtrooms. If operational difficulties arise, such as the size of the courtroom, and the court cannot accommodate supporters, the court will not appoint a communication supporter, and the juror could be excused. Although operational concerns are valid, the vast majority of courtrooms cannot accommodate multiple communications supporters during deliberations. The flexibility in the amendment ensures that, if a court faces any difficulties, the judge can decide to excuse the juror, or the juror can be informed in advance of any issues with that accommodation.

Yes, absolutely. It is for anybody who has a physical disability that impairs their ability to communicate and who needs to have supporters present with them. The supporters would have to take an oath during the deliberations and fully accept the inclusion of all signed support.

In winding up, it is important to say that our step towards a more equal society is not something additional or added on at the end of anything. It is step by step that we make a more inclusive society. Whenever there is an opportunity to be more inclusive, we should take it. We should empower people with disabilities to serve effectively and fully in our society. I press amendment 233.

Amendment 233 agreed to.

Section 35—Verdict of guilty or not guilty and majority required for guilty verdict

Amendment 73 not moved.

There might be concerns about the financial cost of providing interpreters, as well as that space, for jurors. However, although providing interpreters comes with some costs, those costs were found to be manageable in England and Wales. The number of cases that require such support is expected to be small and the costs can be calculated to ensure sustainability. More important, investing in accessibility and inclusion absolutely brings long-term benefits by ensuring that our system is fair for all, regardless of disability.

Amendment 233 matters because everyone, regardless of disability, should have the right to serve on a jury. The amendment seeks to ensure that deaf jurors and others with communication impairments are not excluded from fulfilling that vital civic responsibility, and reflects our commitments to an equal justice system, where everyone can participate fully in legal processes without discrimination. The amendment is a step forward in ensuring that Scotland’s justice system is inclusive and accessible to all, by empowering jurors with disabilities to serve effectively and reaffirming our commitment to equality and fairness.

On a personal note, I am a child of a deaf adult—I am a CODA. For almost 50 years, my father has often relied on me or others to interpret for him, as he is a BSL user. Throughout my life, I have seen him and other members of the deaf community being excluded from various aspects of society, the access to which we, as hearing people, take for granted—we do not note it in our everyday lives.

That exclusion is regardless of their intellect or their good character. It is a shame that that happens. My amendment is not just about deaf people being included in society. Our justice system will benefit by including deaf people, and it will give us more access to a broader demographic within our society. I urge members of the committee to support this important amendment, because it will make our legal system more just and inclusive for all.

I move amendment 233.

We move to questions from Paul O’Kane.

We move on to questions from Marie McNair, who joins us remotely.

Welcome back, and I welcome to the meeting our second panel. Kaukab Stewart, the Minister for Equalities, is accompanied by the following Scottish Government officials: Nick Bland, deputy director, mainstreaming and inclusion; Catherine McMeeken, deputy director, equality; and Jennifer Singerman, solicitor, equalities and criminal justice division. Thank you for attending this morning.

For the benefit of those who were not here at the beginning of the meeting, I remind members that rule 7.5.1 of the Parliament’s standing orders prevents members from referring to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active, except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer. I advise members that Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal case against NHS Fife is active for the purposes of the sub judice rule and contempt of court. I have sought and received permission from the Presiding Officer about the extent to which we can explore matters related to the case today and throughout the course of our PSED inquiry. On the basis of that permission, questions about issues connected to the case will be admissible today, but questions about the specifics of the case will not.

Before we move to questions from committee members, I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

I call Tess White.

Thank you. We move to questions from members.

As members have asked all their questions, that brings this evidence session to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning. We will suspend briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.