Seòmar agus comataidhean

Based on her research, Professor Cheryl Thomas told us that jury conviction rates for rape cases in England and Wales ranged from 65 per cent to 91 per cent, depending on the age and sex of the complainer, whether the offence was historical and a range of other factors.

Yesterday, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association told us very clearly that solicitors do not feel that the many issues affecting rape cases are necessarily due to use of juries. Rape survivors who have spoken to us have not raised the issue of juries. I appreciate that there is not one view and that different people have different experiences, but the main issues that rape victims repeatedly raise when they speak about the re-traumatising effect of the process are how they are treated, the massive problem of delay in the system—which also relates to the issue of the floating diet—and outcomes, including whether there is a conviction and what the sentence is.

Do you accept that survivors, victims and complainers do not seem to identify juries as being a significant problem, but that other issues and concerns seem to be raised repeatedly?

From what we have been told, there seem to be different views as to whether that is correct in Scotland, but irrespective of that, the law in England was changed to make it absolutely clear that it would be possible to carry out such research. Instead of proposing controversial changes that go way beyond the manifesto commitments of the various political parties to abolish the not proven verdict, why are we not trying to enable the collection of data and analysis so that we can get our evidence base and, as a result, make evidence-based policy? That legal change could, I presume, be incorporated into the bill.

The information that we asked for is quite basic, though. We are asking only for numbers, but I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said.

I understand that, and that there are different criteria for taking cases forward in England and Wales. In Scotland, the decision is based on whether there is a sufficiency of evidence. The view is that conviction rates for rape in Scotland are too low, compared with other crimes; notwithstanding what the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association said yesterday in relation to, for example, murder cases, rape conviction levels are an outlier compared with other offences.

You have said very clearly that you are abolishing the not proven verdict not just to increase conviction levels, and in changing jury size, you are trying to fix the system so that it does not have any impact on conviction levels. Surely, though, we should be looking for a system in which there is a higher conviction rate in rape cases, given that there is sufficient evidence to convict. Those cases have been marked in the same way as any other case would be marked, on the basis that the Crown believes that there is sufficient evidence to convict.

Do you see success—or a major factor of success—as being higher conviction rates for rape? If the pilot led to higher conviction rates, would you see that as a successful outcome?

As the convener is aware, last year we heard from a lawyer from Norway, who was over in the Parliament. She was previously a defence agent but is now employed full time as a representative of victims. That system has developed in Norway in the past 50 years. When the cabinet secretary is in Norway, is it possible—obviously, it will depend on the rest of her commitments—for her to look at that system, to see whether anything can be learned?

If the pilot led to fewer convictions, would that be seen as a failure?

My first question was going to be very similar to the one that was asked by Pauline McNeill, so I will pick up where she left off. I was going to ask about how to evaluate a pilot with so little base data, and how that relates to the many and massive changes that the bill proposes.

As you know, one of the criticisms of the bill is that it might cause a range of big changes all at the same time. You have outlined that some of those decisions are still to be made, including on whether a pilot might take place in the new court, with some cases perhaps being within the pilot and others being outside it, or would happen after the abolition of the not proven verdict and the changes to jury majorities.

You have also not decided whether concurrent cases would be compared with one another or cases within the pilot would be compared with historical cases. We understand that there is very little data, but we have some—for example, about conviction rates in recent decades.

I appreciate that you are still thinking through much of that, but do you not think that Parliament should know which options will be taken forward? Do you not think that those decisions should be made during the passage of the bill and that, given the significance of many of the changes, Parliament should be very clear about which proposals will be taken forward?

Given that we know that there are rape myths—we perhaps do not know exactly how they impact on every case or how often that is a massive factor—it is surely easier to educate and select judges, who are a relatively small group, in order to try to address rape myths in their decision making, than it would be to educate a new jury in every single rape case.

Summary cases tend to lead to convictions, do they not?