Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is quite correct that that is a point of divergence from the original report. I accept that there were points raised by the Crown—by the Lord Advocate, in particular—about that, and we have sought to take them on board.

The discretion in deciding what offence goes where for murder cases in which there is a sexual element would, ultimately, remain with prosecutors. They would decide whether a case went to the sexual offences court or the High Court.

I will try to be brief, convener. The rationale is that, quite often in a sexualised murder case, there are surviving witnesses—people who will be called to give evidence on the offence that is being tried.

I appreciate that there is a range of views, but I have pointed to substantive bits of research. I know that time is short, convener, and we can certainly follow this up in writing, but Nicola Guild might be able to add something.

My understanding—and I stand to be corrected—is that although there is research south of the border in relation to people who have served on a jury, there are still limitations. We cannot ask them about their deliberations on a particular jury.

Yes, I would and, with regard to due process—and with respect to you, Mr Findlay, and to the committee—I would, before I lay out responses to Parliament on our intentions for stages 2 and 3, like to see the committee’s stage 1 report.

It is on the table.

Andrew Baird can keep me right on this, but my point was that, although there would be an opportunity for solicitors to deal with a broader range of cases, there would be no diminution in the representation that would be available to the accused in cases that currently go to the High Court.

I was going to get to that point. I ask Lisa McCloy to address that.

I was paraphrasing Lady Dorrian in relation to building a new court, new structures, new rules, new practices and a new philosophy. To, again, paraphrase Lady Dorrian, we are talking about a “‘clean sheet’ approach”.

The advantage of the national jurisdiction aspect is that the sexual offences court will be able to sit in nearly 40—that is, 39—court facilities around the country, so it will have a presence in localities that are nearer to local justice, whereas the High Court can currently appear in only 10 locations. I contend that, given where this court with national jurisdiction can appear, it is in line with trauma-informed practice.

The concern is not only mine: it is a concern for a number of well-respected legal people and for victims and witnesses groups. Much of the bill, including the pilot, comes from that place of concern about the consistently lower conviction rates for offences such as rape and attempted rape.

The pilot of single-judge juryless rape trials is a core proposition. As you will know, it comes from the work of Lady Dorrian. The essence of the time-limited pilot is to examine matters in greater depth; to ascertain its effectiveness and how it is perceived by everybody involved; to enable the issues to be assessed in a practical rather than theoretical way; and to have informed debate. In that regard, it is an unrivalled opportunity to look at what, if anything, is next, bearing in mind the long-standing concerns in and around the prevalence of rape myths—in our society and in juries—and about conviction rates.

I assure the committee that I have had many discussions with people and organisations that are opposed to the pilot that Lady Dorrian proposed. My commitment, whether to bar associations or to the Faculty of Advocates, is to continue those discussions. I strongly refute any suggestion that anything in the pilot undermines the rights of the accused, given the role of written statements and the fact that single-judge trials are not a novel experience in our justice system as it stands; nonetheless, I remain more than open to dialogue on how the criteria are crafted and how the pilot will operate and be evaluated, in order to give as much assurance as possible to those who have concerns.