Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, convener. I will be brief, with a couple of wee follow-up questions.

Good morning. This is a really helpful session. I should say at the start that I am very much in favour of the sexual offences court. Have you had any sort of pushback from victims about the idea of such a court? Will they have the choice, unlikely as it might seem, to say that they do not want to be categorised in that way by using the court?

Is there a danger of you overthinking all this?

That is quite encouraging, but I am sure that you understand the point that Sandy Brindley was making about agency being taken away from the victim if she is told, “Yes, you have to” or “No, you can’t”. That is traumatising in itself as, again, she is powerless.

It sounds like you understand that. An informed choice is exactly the point—it should be all about choice.

Does anybody else want to comment?

Right. I think that the problem that we have been struggling with is the lack of evidence. You probably heard that the previous witnesses have concerns about a two-thirds majority. They think that that raises the bar for convictions, particularly in sexual offence cases, for which, as you know, the rate is very low at the moment. Is there anything to say in favour of the provisions in the bill and the proposed amendments?

Again, with respect, we know that sexual offences are, by their nature, unique. Witnesses have told us of their terrible experiences because there is no uniformity in the way that they are treated. A sexual offences court would surely address that. Again, that is what they want.

Has that not got to do with corroboration, which still exists despite the—

The Government has tried to balance the removal of the not proven verdict by moving to the two-thirds majority, as opposed to a simple majority, but in your opinion, that is not acceptable—is that correct?

There is a bit of hypothesising going on there, but okay.

I fundamentally disagree with the opinion that a sexual offences court is not necessary. With the greatest of respect, we have been hearing for years about the journey of victims of sexual offences, and nothing has happened and nothing is happening. I have been on committees dealing with this for eight years, we talked about it eight years ago and the position for victims has not got better.

We are talking about a trauma-informed, specialist court that, as you probably heard our earlier witnesses say, is very much wanted by victims. I do not think that it should come down to logistics or money. If we can make it work, we should make it work. That is my view. It is necessary and long overdue.

My question picks up on something that Sandy Brindley said about her misgivings about a judge being able to decide whether a victim should have special measures and whether that should be up to the victim to decide. What are the witnesses’ opinions on that?

I want to go back to Stuart Munro’s opening argument, which was really comprehensive and which I understood. Obviously, the committee has wrestled with the issue of not having evidence for changing jury size. Am I right in thinking that, with the removal of not proven, you would prefer us to move to the English system? Is that really what you are saying?