Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is lots of interest in this, so I will open it up to questions from members.

Okay, thank you. That concludes our first panel this morning. I thank our witnesses for attending the meeting. It has been hugely valuable, so thank you very much indeed. We will now have a short suspension to allow for a wee comfort break and a changeover of witnesses.

Thank you very much. I bring in Simon Di Rollo.

It is safe to say that, as a result of the written submissions and the evidence that we have heard in committee, we are acutely aware of the breadth of views that exist. As you will know, there are some very supportive views, not least of which are those of the Lord Advocate and Lady Dorrian. We have the lovely job of trying to pull all of that together and do the best job that we can to respond and to populate our report.

My question bears in mind that broad range of views. There have been some helpful suggestions—particularly, as we have heard, in your profession—about what a specialist approach in Scotland to sexual offence cases would look like. I will bring in Sheila Webster on this. I am interested in teasing out a bit more about the key elements in a specialist approach to dealing with sexual offences and rape cases.

Thank you—that is helpful. We are still working on getting the connection with Katy Clark back, so we will move straight on.

I think that you will all be very relieved to hear me say that that brings our evidence session to a close. I thank the witnesses very much for attending today. It has been an extremely important and helpful session.

Next week, we will return to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill with evidence from the Lord Advocate on parts 1 to 4 of the bill and evidence from members of the judiciary and academics on the bill’s anonymity provisions.

Are members content to defer agenda item 3, which would have been considered in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies. Katy Clark is joining us remotely.

Our first panel of witnesses are here as part of phase 3 of our scrutiny of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, focusing specifically on parts 5 and 6. I welcome Professor James Chalmers, regius professor of law at the school of law at the University of Glasgow, and Professor Vanessa Munro, professor of law at the law school at the University of Warwick, both of whom are joining us online. In the room, we have Professor Cheryl Thomas KC, co-director of the University College London judicial institute. Thank you for taking the time to attend today’s meeting—it is much appreciated.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this session. I propose that we initially focus our questions on the proposal in the bill for a pilot for judge-led trials in certain rape cases. After that, we will move on to other areas.

I will open with a question on rape myths. I will come to Professor Thomas first and then bring in Professor Chalmers and Professor Munro. What does available research tell us about the potential impact that rape myths and other misconceptions have on jury deliberations in rape cases?

Professor Chalmers, would you like to come in?

You seem to have a wee sound problem, Professor Chalmers.

Thank you. Katy, would you like to come back in?

We will move on. I will maybe come back to you if we have time, Fulton.