Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps there needs to be a bit more conversation about the issue, then. I have heard comments about being pushed towards a verdict and juries almost always getting a verdict, but we are still talking about four out of 12 jurors saying that the person is innocent if you are going for a guilty verdict and a conviction.

Or striving to reach it.

This certainly is confusing. We have majority, supermajority, simple majority and unanimity systems. From what you have said, I think that you are in favour of unanimity—no?

But going for 10 out of 12.

So, it is all about striving for unanimity, but 10 out of 12 would be fine.

Okay. I have just one wee quick question. The convener has asked about not proven as a compromise verdict, and you have answered that point, but my question is about changing to a two-thirds majority. The Crown Office has suggested introducing a system for retrials, should the two-thirds majority be missed—if, for instance, there is agreement among seven out of the 12 jurors. Do you think that that should be incorporated into the bill?

You have just touched on what I was going to ask about. In the joint article in the Criminal Law Review, you noted that changing the majority to two thirds might create

“an unacceptable risk of wrongful conviction.”

Will you expand on that a wee bit?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

We have heard that there are different models around the country. You said that there are two budgets but that you are in charge of both. Is that not the case in other areas?

What is the role of primary care mental health and wellbeing services in supporting people with mental health problems and/or directing people to the most appropriate source of support or service? I ask Jo Gibson to come in first on that.