Seòmar agus comataidhean

We move to our second panel of witnesses. From the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, I welcome Laura Buchan, who is procurator fiscal for policy and engagement, and Alisdair Macleod, who is principal procurator fiscal depute in the policy division. I intend to allow around 60 minutes for the session.

I will open up with a general question on the jury research that has been undertaken in Scotland. Laura, what weight do you give to the findings of the available research, including the Scottish jury research, as part of the evidence relating to the proposals in part 4 of the bill?

I know that that is an important issue, but I need to move on and bring in John Swinney.

Thank you. I call Fulton MacGregor.

Good morning, and welcome to the 34th meeting in 2023 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies this morning.

Our main item of business today is to continue to take evidence on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will continue phase 2 of our scrutiny and focus specifically on part 4 of the bill, which covers the abolition of the not proven verdict and changes to jury sizes and majorities.

We are joined by Ronnie Renucci KC, who is vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates; Mr Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland; and Mr Stuart Murray, who is president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association. Welcome to you all.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 75 minutes for this session.

As ever, I will begin with a general question. I will work from my right to my left, and bring in Mr Munro first, then Mr Renucci, and then Mr Murray. Why do you believe that the not proven verdict should be retained as a third verdict?

I will now bring in other members. Fulton MacGregor is first.

I need to move things on. I am conscious of time. I encourage members to direct their questions to specific witnesses, unless it is absolutely necessary to ask all witnesses because you would like a response from each of them. We will get through more questions that way.

We have strayed a little from part 4. I do not like to be too precious, but I point that out in the interests of getting as much evidence as possible on part 4.

Thank you very much for those opening responses. I will ask a follow-up question and put it to the three of you in the same order as before.

In the interests of having an accessible and transparent justice system in Scotland, how would you define “not proven”? That there is no definition of the not proven verdict has come up in previous evidence sessions. How would you define “not proven” if its meaning were to be set out in legislation, for example?

It is probably helpful to point out that the mock jury research that we heard about from Professor Fiona Leverick and Eamon Keane is one part of the evidence that the committee will take. I do not think for one minute that the bill’s provisions are based solely on the findings of mock jury research. Thank you for that helpful response.

If no other members want to come in, I will draw the session to a close and thank the witnesses for attending this morning.

That completes our agenda item. We now move into private session.