Seòmar agus comataidhean

There are a number of layers to my concern about a supermajority. When we consulted on the bill—I appreciate that that was some time ago—there was low support for near unanimity in a reformed system. It was something like 13 per cent. It also feels disproportionate to go from a system that requires a little bit more than 50 per cent to convict to one that, in the context of a majority of 13 out of 15, would require 87 per cent.

The standard of proof is the standard of proof—there are no changes to that. It is worth bearing in mind that juries in Scotland are not told to strive for unanimity. The process is considered to involve an aggregate of individual votes as opposed to being a collective endeavour.

Another difference between Scotland and other systems with two verdicts is that Scotland does not have hung juries or retrials. Such options, should we proceed with reform to a two-verdict system, were not popular in our consultations. In short—forgive me, convener—in relation to near unanimity, there are still some differences in the Scottish system. Corroboration still exists, and there are no retrials in our system.

I think that I said that part 4 of the bill is very specific about this being a stand-alone reform more aligned to modernisation and transparency of decision making. Of course, the bill as a whole contains a number of measures on improving access to justice. We have collectively been focused on more access to justice for more women in the context of sexual offences and rape, given the really low conviction rate, particularly for some of the evidentially more difficult cases. This reform is about ensuring our system’s integrity and maintaining balance. All the evidence points to the fact that, if we move from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system, convictions will increase, hence the concern about miscarriages of justice and the interconnected discussion and debate around the jury majority.

I am well aware of the views of Scottish Women’s Aid. It has been consistent in its views, as has Rape Crisis Scotland. On the other hand, Victim Support Scotland and some of the other organisations that are involved in the victims task force, which I chair, along with the Lord Advocate, have been campaigning for a commissioner a long time. I have to be respectful to all voices.

It has been put to me that there is a gap, bearing it in mind that a victims and witnesses commissioner exists south of the border. Victim Support Scotland has, on a number of occasions, challenged me about that gap in Scotland. I am also mindful that action is being taken to strengthen the role of the Victims’ Commissioner south of the border. That is in line with what we are attempting to legislate for by bringing in a commissioner who has a particular responsibility around holding people to account. Our commissioner would, of course, be accountable to the Parliament.

I would be happy to do that. At a basic level, I am more than happy to lay out the case for the commissioner in detail, but I also have a manifesto commitment to deliver for victims and witnesses. I utterly appreciate the Parliament’s role in making final decisions but I will continue advocating as best I can for a victims and witnesses commissioner until the Parliament decides otherwise.

Good morning, and thank you, convener.

I wrote to the committee last autumn to update members on my approach to stage 2 of the bill. I remind members of the significance of the proposed legislation. You have all heard compelling evidence that the justice system does not provide a satisfactory experience for many victims and witnesses; for many, it can be actively harmful, particularly for those who have experienced sexual crimes.

Incremental changes over the years have delivered improvements, and I am grateful to all who have worked to drive such change. However, as the committee has heard from the Lord Advocate and Lady Dorrian, the former Lord Justice Clerk, the dial has not shifted enough and the scale of reform that is needed cannot be delivered through existing structures and processes.

The bill sets out a package of reforms that have the potential, if agreed to, to transform the operation of the justice system to the benefit of victims, particularly women, while protecting the rights of the accused. I am heartened that there is significant support for much of the bill. I am, of course, disappointed—although I accept—that that does not extend to the full package of measures that are included in the bill as introduced.

As I hope that my letter makes clear, I want to work across the chamber and reform by consensus. I have set out key areas in which the bill will be amended in response to the committee’s stage 1 report. The most significant of those is the pilot of single-judge rape trials, which I have confirmed that I will no longer pursue. Although that is regrettable, I have to recognise that there is insufficient cross-party support for that.

However, I do not accept that the long-standing issue of access to justice for rape victims has somehow disappeared. The low conviction rates for that type of crime are a stark symptom of a system that does not operate effectively for some of the most serious and gendered crimes. Therefore, I will lodge amendments at stage 2 to remove the barriers to conducting research on jury deliberations, to help us to better understand the impact of rape myths on decision making.

I will also lodge a significant package of amendments to address matters relating to the creation of a sexual offences court. The amendments have been developed in collaboration with justice stakeholders and include changes to address concerns about the legal representation that accused prosecuted are entitled to in court. Amendments will be lodged on appointment and removal of judges to the court and on enhancing choice for complainers in how they give their evidence. I am confident that the amendments will address concerns about the model of the court that were raised by the committee at stage 1.

The former Lord Justice Clerk, the Lord Advocate, the senators of the College of Justice and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, as well as victims, have told the committee that a stand-alone court is necessary to improve the experience of sexual offence complainers. They have made it clear that tinkering around the edges will simply be insufficient. Therefore, I urge committee members to grasp the nettle and embrace wholesale reform to the management of sexual offence cases by supporting the creation of a stand-alone court.

I am pleased that there is cross-party support for the removal of the archaic not proven verdict. You have heard much evidence on the need for consequential changes to the jury system: some from people arguing that we should retain a simple majority, some from those favouring a qualified majority and some from people who would like to move to a supermajority or unanimity. The evidence that we have supports the view that moving to two verdicts could lead to an increase in convictions for all crimes. My assessment is that we cannot abolish not proven in isolation without impacting the balance of fairness in our system. Stand-alone reform would risk miscarriages of justice; equally, setting too high a threshold for conviction would mean that we fail to hold perpetrators to account. To maintain the integrity of our criminal justice system and confidence in that system, the most prudent approach is a model with two verdicts, 15 jurors and a two-thirds majority requirement for a conviction.

Thank you, convener. I look forward to working with the committee over the coming several weeks as we navigate our way through to stage 2.

In the light of the removal of the pilot of juryless trials from part 6 of the bill, our approach will be twofold. Preparatory work is under way on setting up a working group to pursue a package of non-legislative actions. In relation to the bill, we intend to amend section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to allow research into real jury deliberations with appropriate safeguards, which will be important and pave the way for the gathering of more valuable insights that are not possible under the current legislative framework.

Of course.

We have borne in mind the issues that the committee raised at stage 1 on rights of audience and have given careful consideration to the committee’s recommendations. We will lodge stage 2 amendments to address those concerns. We have been quite explicit about the reasons for doing that.

There are three routes to counsel in the sexual offences court. I am happy to answer any questions about that, but I know that members have been briefed on it.

On who prosecutes, I am quite sure that, as it stands right now, that is a matter for the Lord Advocate. I have not brought forward any propositions to change that, as you would expect.

No, it is absolutely not. One of the biggest pieces of jury research that was undertaken in the United Kingdom looked specifically at Scotland and involved 900-odd participants. It was carried out over two years, and Lord Bonomy was involved as the presiding judge in the mock trials that were part of it. We also have the meta-analysis, which was shared with the committee further to one of my appearances. There is lots of data to show the consequences of having three verdicts rather than two.

It might be helpful if I remind the committee that the purpose of part 4 is to modernise the system. The jury-and-verdict system is not engineered to increase convictions—or, that is, increase convictions in particular offences. It has to be absolutely fair to all parties: victims and complainers, and the accused. That is the balance that we have to strike.

Therefore, my position, and the position of the Government, is that we need to look very closely, as we have done, at the evidence that we have, comparing our unique Scottish system with other two-verdict systems, and make decisions on that basis. The abolition of not proven necessitates—in my view, and, I believe, in the view of the majority of stakeholders—a change in the majority itself, notwithstanding the debate about what the qualified majority should be. I imagine that that debate will continue through stages 2 and 3.

I do not have any plans for sunset clauses, but I would suggest that, in general terms, the committee has always been very focused on ensuring that the right reporting mechanisms are built into primary legislation. I am also very conscious of the comments of Elish Angiolini, who, when she gave evidence way back at the start of this process, talked about how the law is not static and how it constantly evolves. Indeed, you see that with High Court judgments on points of law and the outcomes of references made to that court. The law does not stand still. However, as far as this primary legislation is concerned, we have enough evidence for us to come to the decision that, in my view and in the view of other stakeholders, this is a credible and fair move that will give, and maintain, confidence in our system.