Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am confident that a pilot will be lawful, and I am confident that, as a Government, we will comply with the European convention on human rights. People have a right to a fair trial, but they do not have a right to a jury trial. I know that people have different views on that. Bear it in mind that single-judge trials are not unique to our current system.

On appeals, you might have heard me say that one of the strengths of a pilot is that written reasons will be produced. Under the current jury system, written reasons are not produced by a jury, and the option of juries writing their judgments was dismissed by Lady Dorrian’s review. I know from engagement with other jurisdictions that there is real value in written decisions. They not only give us an insight and understanding into what has led to conviction or acquittal, but offer real transparency for the complainer and the accused. I argue that written reasons potentially enhance the rights of the accused. I cannot predict whether they will lead to more appeals from accused persons, but there is a real value in written decisions. They are used in other jurisdictions, and I think that they are very valuable.

It is not the only outcome. I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to improve access to justice for women, girls and other victims of the most heinous offences, which have lifelong consequences. We all share that.

I have outlined—

Of course.

We will bring forward clear legislation. Obviously, the bill is at stage 1; stage 2 and stage 3 are yet to commence. I dispute aspects of Ms Dowey’s proposition, but I am not about copping out. You will have heard the phrase, “Now is the time, now is the hour”. We have decisions to make, and I do not think that we should be kicking difficult decisions down the line. There is evidence on the prevalence of rape myths in society and of how they impact on juries. We have discussed at length the lower conviction rates for rape, compared with those for other crimes. We have discussed the fact that there is an entirely legitimate and pressing need for further examination. Why would we kick that further down the line? Yes, there is always work to be done and we always need to work through the detail, but I am not prepared to kick things down the line.

We have an opportunity here and now to make seismic change through the bill as a whole. The pilot is one part of that, but the inclusion of the pilot in the bill says that we are not about to walk away from difficult issues. We are not prejudging the pilot, but we are prepared to invest the time, work and resources to tackle difficult issues that we are nowhere near to resolving. We should not be walking away from victims or difficult issues. We need to be focused on that now. That is what I and the Government are focused on, and I am quite sure that the committee is also focused on what we need to do now.

The issues that we are wrestling with here and now have been around for at least 40 years. If we do not grasp those difficult issues, we will be kicking the can for another 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, and I am not content with that.

On secondary legislation, it is not unusual for detailed research, a proposition or something very specific to come in at a later stage through regulation. Such regulation often allows for more in-depth consultation and analysis. I have been transparent—and I might be accused later of being overly transparent—about my thinking, about the direction of travel on amendments and the pilot and how it might affect the bill.

We have overwhelming evidence that rape myths are a factor and that they influence decision making. I know that there is not unanimous agreement and I would never expect to find that among academics, just as I would never expect unanimous agreement within the legal profession or among politicians. Legislators are meant to take everything in the round. I am not going to cherry pick or play one piece of evidence off against another. Much of the evidence from the past 20 years is overwhelming that rape myths can feature in jury trials. We should not ignore that. There will be more than one solution to it, but we have a duty to explore the benefits of all the tools that are available to us.

I would love to do that.

It has been looked at, and, again, the timescales are very specific. In the current system, various processes and actions have to take place in not less than seven days or not less than 14 days. In relation to enabling—we all recognise that the complainer would need time to appoint representation and so on—some of those processes would go to not less than 21 days.

There is an overarching timeframe. Committee members such as Ms Clark will probably be more in and around the detail from a practice point of view, but some overarching processes have to happen within 28 days in the context of a trial.

It is about embedding the best of practice. Of course there always needs to be flexibility for individual circumstances, and we will take away Ms McNeill’s thoughts on the matter.

That is another area of great complexity and sensitivity. On one hand, we do not want victims to feel that they are being forced into anonymity, which goes back to the point about choice and control. On the other hand, I am also conscious that, for loved ones who are left behind, there can continue to be traumatic and on-going intrusion. It is therefore a complex and difficult issue.

The starting point is that a person’s general data protection regulation rights to privacy expire on their death. Therefore we are not talking about changing or making a wee tweak in one bit of legislation. However, we have started the process of considering the matter, following representations that I and others have had from victims organisations. I have also discussed it with Dr Andrew Tickell, whose evidence the committee has heard.

We are also considering the experience in other jurisdictions. It is an area in which we need to proceed with great care. We do not want to criminalise families who want to speak and give testimony to the loved one whom they have lost, and who might also want to be critical of the justice system, the court process or the sentence. A lot of lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions—for example, from the state of Victoria in Australia and from Ireland—that have gone down one road towards legislating on anonymity continuing beyond a victim’s death, and then, on the back of further representations from victims, they have had to revisit all that.

Members will have seen—as have I—Dr Tickell’s written correspondence with the committee. A week or so ago, I wrote to this committee and also to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, which has been considering the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill.

As regards finding a way forward, I have made a few commitments. The first is that I will not make false promises on the issue. There is no way that I would make such promises to victims and then have to make a big retreat. I just will not do that. However, I can commit to genuinely engaging with the issue, while acknowledging that it is not an easy one.

We will hold a round-table meeting on 20 February. I know that invitations have gone to members of the committee who are spokespeople for their parties. That meeting will involve a wide range of stakeholders, including people who might have a view on the issue from a press perspective, legal experts—for example, Dr Tickell has been invited—and victims organisations.

I have also had my own engagement with people who have been affected by the greatest levels of intrusion. We will undertake further engagement that will focus on families, in which we will explore with them their views on how we could overcome the various difficulties. For example, a set of parents might have differing views on whether anonymity should be waived. That is a live issue in today’s world. There is a whole host of other complexities.

While making absolutely no promises, I want to empower people who want to speak, but protect the privacy of those who are left behind.