Seòmar agus comataidhean

Professor Paterson, do you believe that there is any risk that the previous warnings from the Law Society of Scotland over many years—the Law Society being a very effective lobbying organisation—will count against it today? It is a case of crying wolf, perhaps—or that could be the public perception.

I agree broadly with everything that has been said. As Jamie Greene noted, we are where we are. We were given only a partial picture a week ago and it took the committee agitating for some answers to reveal a much more complex picture. In future, if we can, we should ensure that the authorities with which we are dealing are a bit more forthcoming in respect of such issues, especially when we are on a precipice and there is not much that we can do other than note our concerns.

We should also write to the inspectorate.

My questions, which are on the not proven verdict, are for Ronnie Renucci and James Chalmers. I will ask them one after the other.

Mr Renucci, on the not proven verdict and what might happen to it, the Faculty of Advocates highlights the need

“to identify the changes in our criminal justice system”

that would come along with any such change and that failure to do so would risk “jeopardising reliable justice”. Can you expand on what those fears or potential unforeseen consequences might be?

Thank you.

Has the Government indicated how long the review will take, or when it will get round to it?

Yes, please. I would like to ask everyone a question, but we just do not have the time, so this question is for Moira Price and Dr Marsha Scott.

The court churn issue has been with us for decades, if not for ever, and, in my past life as a journalist, I often reported on cases that had been subject to extreme delays. Without identifying any individuals, I can say that one case involving a victim of serial and serious domestic violence took three and a half years to be concluded while another case involving an alleged stalking victim was concluded just this year after four years. Both female victims spoke not of being revictimised, as though their experience was a one-off occasion, but of living in a perpetual state of revictimisation that had consumed their entire lives, and both said that they would not engage with the system again. I know that improvements have been made and that there has been Covid to deal with, but my question for Moira Price and Marsha Scott is this: what can and should be done about male offenders who appear to use the criminal justice process to sustain their victimisation?

That is very interesting.

Let me move on to Professor Chalmers. Your evidence, along with that of your colleagues Fiona Leverick and Vanessa Munro, is really informative and interesting. To many people, it might deliver a fairly damning verdict on the not proven verdict. In the light of what Ronnie Renucci has told us, do you believe that getting rid of the not proven verdict requires a change to the majority structure of juries?

In your submission, you talk about the history of the not proven verdict and the fact that, in 1846, a Lord Cockburn was very critical of it. We, in the Scottish Parliament, have probably been talking about it since the Parliament’s inception. Is there intent on the part of the Scottish Government to make the change, or will we still be talking about it in another 176 years?

The first question is for John Watt. Most people might not appreciate that the parole system in Scotland effectively operates behind closed doors and in secret. I should declare an interest, as I did before: I am a signatory to or participant in the victim notification scheme. I personally regard that scheme to be impersonal and unclear, and it puts the onus on victims to be proactive and to choose to engage.

In your submission to the committee, John, you say that the

“scheme should be radically revised”.

Given that you agree that significant changes need to be made to the scheme, what is preventing you from doing that?