Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much. Would Stuart Murray like to add anything?

Okay. Thank you.

Again, I remind members to confine questions to part 4. I know that I am being precious, and I said that I was not going to be.

Sorry, may I interrupt? Stuart Munro wants to come in on that.

On that note, I thank you all for attending. We will have a short suspension to allow us to change witnesses.

Thank you. I now invite other members to ask their questions, starting with Fulton MacGregor.

Okay. Thanks very much.

I will go back to Sandy Brindley. In your submission, it is very clear that your experience of working with survivors is that they feel that the not proven verdict does not necessarily support them. They feel that it is unclear and confusing, and they feel let down by it. However, you also comment that some survivors derived some comfort from a verdict of not proven rather than not guilty. Is it therefore fair to say that that is not reflective of the majority of survivors’ views, as you understand them?

Thank you both for attending.

Our next meeting, on 13 December, will continue with evidence taking on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We will hear from representatives of the legal profession and the Crown Office.

Mr Duffy, in your submission, you say:

“The vast majority of people are totally unaware of the court system and do not know that the Not Proven Verdict exists.”

Earlier, you spoke about the confusion about what exactly that verdict means. I am interested in your thoughts on whether it would be more effective if the not proven verdict was better explained to people, so that their understanding was clearer, and whether that, in itself, might make the use of the not proven verdict more effective.

I call Pauline McNeill, and then Rona Mackay.