Seòmar agus comataidhean

In this session, we are trying to focus on whether a change in the numbers would make a substantial difference. If we put in place a requirement for unanimity, for example, would that make much difference to conviction rates? We do not really have any evidence from this jurisdiction, as far as I understand.

I have a question about what was said in the previous evidence session. I think that both of you were in the public gallery for that session. It is to do with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the fact that we are relying on mock jury research because there is a view that it is not possible to carry out research with real jurors. Have you looked at that? Do you think that that is why there is no academic research on real jurors in Scotland? Do you have any information in that regard?

I think that Stuart Munro also said that he was not convinced that it was not possible to carry out research and that there had been discussion about it in England. That is a UK-wide piece of legislation, and, because there was a lack of clarity, the UK Government in Westminster introduced legislation to enable research to take place. Is it clear that we cannot carry out research? Is that particular aspect—that narrow issue—something that you have given consideration to? It can be a yes or no answer.

Can you say any more about how that information will be used and how the person will be informed? What will be the processes in that respect? Will they be similar to what you have just outlined?

Indeed. I lodged a final bill proposal this morning, but that is for a different discussion.

The 2002 freedom of information legislation enables designation of more bodies. Do you envisage there being provision to extend the range of bodies that are covered, if experience requires it?

The regulations apply to

“a person with whom they”—

that is, Social Security Scotland—

“come into contact”.

Who, other than clients, would the organisation come into contact with? How would those people be informed about the use of their information?

Thank you.

It is proposed that the council be given powers to request information from a very wide range of organisations. Can you justify that? Why are such extensive information-seeking powers proposed?

I want to go back to the issue of evidence and data. Last week, we considered the Scottish Government’s proposal that a majority in a jury should be changed to eight out of 12, but we also considered the possibility of it being 10 out of 12.

Sandy Brindley, I appreciate that we have no hard data and that there is no concrete evidence on this, but what are your impressions—anecdotally, from the women with whom Rape Crisis Scotland works—on the outcomes from juries? How often is the decision, either to convict or to acquit, unanimous, and how often is the jury split? What kind of splits are you told about? I appreciate that you might not have formally surveyed the women with whom Rape Crisis Scotland works, but what is your impression? I feel that we are working in the dark, so even anecdotal information is of interest.

Are complainers not given the information on the majority?