Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be wrong of me to portray those as a tool—a lever or a button—that can increase conviction rates.

I am on record expressing deep concern about conviction rates. We know that, over a five-year period, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape are at 46 per cent, compared with about 84 per cent for other crimes. When we disaggregate different types of rape cases, the conviction rate for acquaintance rape is, according to the Lord Advocate, around 20 or 25 per cent. There is a difference in conviction rates depending on whether the victim is an adult or a child. From memory, in relation to children, where there has been an offence under, I think, section 18 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, the conviction rate is higher, at more than 70 per cent; in relation to adults, where the offence is prosecuted under section 1 of that act, the rate is about 35 per cent.

I cannot be unconcerned about those rates. I must respect the independence of the courts and judiciary—indeed, I am under a legal obligation to do so—but I want to find the right way to tackle the issue and I want to look at the evidence without prejudging, because we cannot ignore those conviction rates.

I assure you that I am trying very hard to answer your question, Ms McNeill.

We can share new information or reshare information that has already been in the public domain, if that aids discussions and deliberations. That is not a problem. The proviso is that decisions are still to be made about the criteria and the time limit—for example, whether it is to be a year or two years—and about some of the processes around evaluation.

My views are emerging on much of that, including what should be in legislation—because more detail on the pilot could be put in legislation—so you will forgive me for also being keen to understand the committee’s deliberation, in its stage 1 report.

I can share more information now. I am just highlighting that some decisions are not absolutely made yet, because further engagement is, I hope, on-going with people who have fundamental objections to the pilot. However, I am absolutely open to the suggestion that, if there is need for more detail in the bill, as opposed to leaving all the detail to regulations, which was the original plan, it will be anchored in the bill, then we would come back to Parliament with more detailed regulations.

The change will not happen without secondary legislation, but if we can anchor more information in the bill and make more information public, we will do that. Before the bill passes, and before we get to stages 2 and 3, we will have made more definitive decisions on the back of further consultation about the shape and size of the change.

We are not grafting a new court that is being built from the ground up and a new way of working on to existing court systems, purely because that would mean that changes would be iterative, as opposed to seismic.

Andrew Baird, you have longevity in this issue.

There will be other surviving witnesses who have experienced sexual abuse or a sexual offence, and the proposal provides the flexibility to acknowledge the needs of those victims and witnesses—

There are two points to your question. What would be evaluated—the empirical information or evidence that is gathered—is about efficiency and effectiveness, experience and the outcome of the trial. Can we publish more detailed information on that? The short answer is yes. The working group worked on that information, and I will check in a moment on what we have and have not published. We published a fact sheet. I will ask Heather Tully to remind me of the detail.

I have not been to Norway as yet.

Yes.

With regard to the views or concerns that have been expressed regarding the Lord Justice General’s power to remove judges, we have listened carefully and are looking at potential amendments so that the situation is clear and unambiguous. There is an arrangement for the appointment and removal of temporary judges, and it might be that we need to make things clear in the bill by introducing provisions that mirror those arrangements.

On sentencing powers, I am firmly of the view that the sexual offences court should have unlimited sentencing powers. That is a departure from the work that was undertaken in the original review. We should absolutely guard against any perception that the court is a downgrade; it is a court with status that should have the same powers as the High Court, given the gravity of some of the offences that it will be dealing with.

It will be transformative. You will have heard lots of evidence about the opportunities when you build something from the ground up. The founding principle of the court is to improve the experience of complainers. There is broad support for the establishment of a court with national jurisdiction and the ability to operate in around 40 venues across the country, and it is within the gift of us all to shape how the new court is seen.

In respect of resources, the financial memorandum outlines set-up and on-going costs. Inevitably, there will be costs, and we will look at that issue constantly from now until implementation because, as we know, costs can change. In the longer term, there are potential savings to be had with the more efficient use of court resources. Indeed, we have already seen in other courts in the system the benefits of really good judicial case management.

What we are talking about is around 700 cases that are currently in our system—both sheriff and jury cases and solemn cases in the High Court—and the issue is also the more effective management of those cases, which was at the heart of Lady Dorrian’s review. Given that we are now dealing with a huge increase in those cases compared with 10 years ago, thought needed to be given to the efficient case management of those particularly difficult cases in the interests of serving justice and in the interests of complainers.

We have a stage 2 timetable and a stage 3 timetable that we will all have to adhere to.

In exercising the right to reply to the preamble to Mr Findlay’s question, I think that I have laid out today that we have lots of evidence. We have also laid out some ethical and legal considerations about the type of evidence that can be gathered and how it can be gathered. I accept the argument that there is always a case for seeking more evidence, but we also have to acknowledge that there can be other limits and that we could continue to seek evidence for ever and a day without ever implementing any of it. I do accept, however, that, as Ms Clark has pointed out, there is a balance to be struck.

On the very important question about trauma-informed practice, there is a difference between the definitions that are required in practice and what has to be expressed in the context of the law. Let me reassure Mr Findlay that my door is never closed and that we continue to engage with a large number of stakeholders—