Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I bring in Russell Findlay, I have a slightly left-field question. Should the provisions on anonymity be extended to the accused? I do not know whether you have looked at that issue in the scope of your work, but, in any case, I would be interested to know what, if any, views you have on that.

That is interesting. I will bring in Russell Findlay.

I will bring in Sharon Dowey in a moment. First, following on from Pauline McNeill’s final question, the issue that has come into my head during the session is victims’ autonomy. We have spoken about their choices and the extent of their control. Which factors should be considered in how we inform a victim about their choices on anonymity, so that we balance the legislative provisions with aspects such as their welfare and their right to autonomy? It is more of a practical question about what that would look like. How do we tell them what anonymity is and what it means for them?

That is an interesting point.

I will bring in Fulton MacGregor. We are just coming up to the end of the evidence session, so I ask you to be brief, please.

We have about 10 minutes left, so I will bring in Rona Mackay.

Thank you. Sheriff Cubie, do you want to add anything before I open questioning to members?

Thank you. I know that members will want to come back to look at that a lot more closely.

I welcome our second panel for today: the Rt Hon Lord Matthews, senator of the College of Justice; and Sheriff Andrew Cubie, sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, appeal sheriff and temporary High Court judge. Welcome to you both; we are very grateful that you have been able to give up time to join us this morning.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this panel. I propose that we focus our questions initially on the proposal for a new sexual offences court, before moving on to jury majorities, the proposals for a pilot for judge-led trials in certain rape cases, the proposals for independent legal representation for complainers, and, finally, anonymity for victims of sexual offences.

I understand that neither of our witnesses wishes to make an opening statement, so I will open up with a couple of general questions.

The first is on the proposals for the specialist sexual offences court. I will come to Lord Matthews first and then to Sheriff Cubie. What are your views—I mean, rather, what are the views of the judiciary—on the idea of creating a specialist sexual offences court? Is it supported, and if so, why?

I have a follow-up question for Lord Matthews. I am interested in the views of the judiciary on what the Scottish Government is proposing for how the new court might operate and what it would look like, given that it is not being proposed as a new division of the High Court.