Seòmar agus comataidhean

I remind members that I am asking for questions to remain on stage 2 amendments; I know that it is very easy to drift into other areas. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

I remind members—this may be of interest to our witnesses, too—that the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is coming to the committee to give an update on the progress on the review of the victim notification scheme. That will be helpful for members ahead of stage 2 of the bill.

I am conscious of the time, as we have a couple of other parts to cover. Part 2 relates to trauma-informed practice and part 3 is on special measures in civil cases. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has provided one or two updates on those parts.

I will open up the questioning to members, if there is anything that they would like to raise around those two parts of the bill. I also ask our witnesses whether they would like to come back on anything in part 2 or part 3, in particular given that stage 2 is coming up. I will come to Sandy Brindley first, and then Kate Wallace.

Thank you for those helpful insights. I will come back to Stuart Munro as I might have misheard you towards the end of your evidence. I want to clarify that, with regard to this particular issue, the cabinet secretary’s letter says:

“After careful consideration, I believe that the most prudent approach, best able to maintain balance and confidence in our system, is to seek support for a model with two verdicts, fifteen jurors, and a two thirds majority requirement for conviction.”

I want to be clear about that. Perhaps I misheard what you said, Stuart.

We are a wee bit over time. Thank you both for joining us today and for providing a really helpful update on your views on the proposed stage 2 amendments.

We will have a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.

Our next group of witnesses are representatives of the legal profession. I am pleased to say that we are joined by Simon Brown, president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association; Michael Meehan KC, from the Faculty of Advocates; and Stuart Munro, convener of the criminal law committee of the Law Society of Scotland. I thank you all for joining us.

I intend to allow around 75 minutes for this session. We will begin with part 4 of the bill, just to confuse you, and I will open with a general question on jury reform. You will know that the Scottish Government is now seeking support for a model for jury reform that would have two verdicts of guilty or not guilty, removing the not proven verdict; 15 jurors; and a two-thirds majority requirement for conviction. What are your views on the revised proposal in comparison with what was in the bill at stage 1? I will start with Stuart Munro.

Good morning, and welcome to the 38th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning.

Our main item of business is evidence taking on the Scottish Government’s intentions in relation to stage 2 amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We have agreed to hold today’s evidence sessions in the light of the importance of the proposed changes to the bill. We want to understand what various organisations think about the proposed changes before we look at the detail of those changes in the new year.

Our first panel of witnesses consists of organisations that represent victims of crime. I am pleased that we are joined in the committee room by Kate Wallace, who is chief executive of Victim Support Scotland. We are joined online by Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland. Regrettably, Louise Johnson from Scottish Women’s Aid has had to submit her apologies this morning, as she is unwell. However, we are advised that Scottish Women’s Aid has indicated that it will provide a written submission.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow around 75 minutes for the first panel of witnesses. I will try to group questions and answers around the different parts of the bill, and I will begin by asking an opening question about part 4.

The Scottish Government is now seeking support for a jury reform model that would have only two verdicts—in other words, no not proven verdict—and that proposes 15 jurors and a two-thirds majority requirement for conviction. I am interested in your organisations’ views on the proposed changes compared with what was in the bill at stage 1. I will come to Kate Wallace first and then I will bring in Sandy Brindley.

The Government has been very clear that the proposed change in jury size and majority would be a balancing measure. If the not proven verdict is removed with no corresponding change to jury size and majority, that could introduce an imbalance relating to risk around conviction. Do you accept that there is a need for a balancing measure to be included in the stage 2 amendments, as the Government has proposed?

Thank you for that. That is incredibly helpful.

I note that we have taken almost 45 minutes to explore one part of the bill, but I think that it was absolutely appropriate to do that. I would now like to move on to part 5 of the bill, which relates to the proposal on a stand-alone sexual offences court. In the cabinet secretary’s correspondence, she reaffirms her commitment to

“a standalone court that has the freedom to operate in a manner that enables it to both identify and develop changes in practice and procedure that will deliver meaningful improvements to the experience of sexual offence victims.”

She sets out some of the areas where she is proposing amendments, including legal representation for accused, security of tenure for sexual offences court judges and offering more choice to vulnerable witnesses with regard to giving evidence. I would like to hear our witnesses’ views on that provision and the amendments that have been proposed at this point.

There is a very quick point from Kate Wallace, then we will have to move on.

Given that there are no more questions on part 4, we will move to part 5, which relates to the proposals for a sexual offences court. In the cabinet secretary’s letter to the committee, she sets out her commitment to

“a standalone court that has the freedom to operate in a manner that enables it to both identify and develop changes in practice and procedure that will deliver meaningful improvements to the experience of sexual offence victims.”

The correspondence from the Government sets out a number of areas in which it proposes to lodge amendments at stage 2, such as legal representation for an accused, security of tenure for judges, and choice in how vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence. There is quite a lot of detail on what is being proposed for stage 2. What are your views on those proposals?