Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, let me help you then. We have established that it will not be the High Court. It will be a national court with wider sentencing powers, but in the hierarchy of the court system, it will not be as high as the High Court—is that right? It cannot be.

That is because that confuses people. You previously said that you are not trying to alter the rate of conviction but that you are trying to change experiences. That is what I had always understood. Since we do not have any criteria—am I correct in saying that, or could you republish them?—I do not know what the criteria for assessing the single-judge pilot is.

Good morning to you and your team, cabinet secretary. You are right to say that all the political parties had a manifesto commitment to abolish the not proven verdict. I did not take a view on Michael McMahon’s bill, but I did not support it. We might have a consensus on abolishing the not proven verdict, but the problem, as you have heard in the lines of questioning, is how we get a consensus on the formulation of the change in the size and majority of the jury.

You said that Scotland is an outlier. However, with the proposals, Scotland would still be an outlier, because no other jurisdiction has the majority that you propose. If I have understood your position, you are saying that we do not want to be an outlier but we will still be an outlier under the proposals. Is the reason for that position the corroboration that we have in Scots law? Is that why you are comfortable with still being an outlier in the international arena?

So, we will always be an outlier—is that what you mean? We will always be different.

Thank you.

Lastly, I go back to Russell Findlay’s question on a point that the Lord Advocate raised with the committee. In cases in which there was a seven-to-five majority, there would be no conviction. That is what you are legislating for. On the question of whether the Crown should have the right to a retrial, you said that you might look at the double-jeopardy provisions. Are you prepared to give an assurance that any amendments at stage 2—I suppose that that is what we are talking about—will take into consideration that any right of the Crown, if that is the direction of travel that you choose, should be clearly set out in the legislation?

What I am getting at is that, although I think that the Lord Advocate made a fair point, we have to consider that a future Lord Advocate might take a different approach. The Parliament should not give away powers lightly. If the Parliament, in legislating for the provisions in the bill, feels that some allowance should be made for the Crown to move to a retrial, that should not be a wide provision. I would be deeply concerned if the Parliament did not have the final say on that, because it cannot be divorced from what we are looking at right now. Can you give me an assurance that, if you were looking at such an approach, you would ensure that it was based on a parliamentary decision? Does that make sense?

To be fair, in my assessment, even those who support its retention realise that there is a consensus that we must move on from it. I am trying to understand how we then get a consensus on another thing if we remove that verdict. Am I correct in saying that you have put on the record that the purpose of the reform is not to increase conviction rates per se?

You have probably heard me ask questions about rights of audience, and that concern about a change to the rights of audience is shared by the senators. Forgive me, because, as a layperson, I am trying to fully understand this:

“Despite the restriction in relation to rape and murder, the types of cases where a solicitor would be able to represent the accused in the Sexual Offences Court could include ones which are currently prosecuted in the High Court. Thus allowing solicitors to represent an accused in a broader range of serious cases.”

The bill will allow that to change so that a procurator fiscal depute cannot prosecute. That is in section 47(6). For some offences, rape and murder excluded, there will be a change to the rights of audience.

Surely you must realise that that will be seen as lowering the status of the court. We have the rules for a reason. We have had years of differences between advocates and solicitor advocates and who can represent an accused person who faces eight or nine years in jail. Did that proposed change come about by deliberate provision or accident?

So, representing those accused persons is a development opportunity that you give solicitors. I think that we need clarity. You can understand my concern.

Sure.

I was trying to establish whether the committee is aware of that research. I do not know that we are. You said that that research says that the removal of the not proven verdict would increase convictions, which is at odds with what the Lord Advocate said last week. John Swinney, in his line of questioning, expressed concerns about the Lord Advocate saying that she thought that it would result in a lower conviction rate. Your research shows otherwise. The problem that I have is that I would like to have put that research to other witnesses. Did we miss that?