Seòmar agus comataidhean

Finally, with the current and expected future resources, do you think that trauma-informed practices can be implemented meaningfully?

My colleague Russell Findlay mentioned section 275 applications earlier. Do you support the principle that complainers should have access to independent legal representation when there is an application to use sexual history or character?

Earlier, the Lord Advocate said that one of the single biggest improvements that could be made was to have witnesses better prepared and keep them properly informed. Does the bill go far enough? Should complainers have independent legal representation throughout the process?

Will you tell me more about your concerns about further delay being caused in the system? Is there anything that we could do to modify that?

I want to go back over something that Pauline McNeill said, to ensure that my understanding of the point is right. Paragraph 38 of your joint submission says:

“As drafted, the Bill would criminalise a family member, friend—or stranger—who shared a child victim’s social media post disclosing they were the victim of a sexual crime. They would not necessarily benefit from the public domain defence already discussed”.

Would that take account of a case in which, for example, someone’s auntie, who should know that they are under 18, has shared their post? Would we be legislating to criminalise the auntie for sharing a post that the complainer had made of their own free will?

I want to follow up on the points that Pauline McNeill raised initially about the varying experiences of witnesses, as well as Russell Findlay’s point about the requirement for legislation. We have heard from witnesses about the different experiences that they have had. The Crown Office’s submission says that, when decisions are made about how a witness provides evidence,

“there should be sufficient time for a court visit and meaningful discussions between the witness and the prosecutor about special measures.”

In another part, it says:

“prosecutors act in the public interest and do not represent individual complainers or witnesses.”

Do all advocate deputes support spending extra time with complainers to explain the processes, or does it come down to what you said earlier about resources?

Sheriff Cubie, do you have any comments on that?

I mean if the child did not make a complaint but they put out the post and it was shared by their friends and family. If the person who shared the post was over 18 and they knew that the child who put out the original post was under 18, could someone other than that child just go in and prosecute them?

So, even if the child did not bring a complaint, the auntie could still be prosecuted for sharing the post.

So, it could happen.