Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be very helpful.

But they will all come together in one specialist court. Is that your understanding?

Is there a grey area in the sense that some cases that do not involve rape or attempted rape would still be indicted in the High Court, if the Lord Advocate thought that the offences were severe enough—

—and that they would attract rights of audience of counsel? Are those cases potentially not provided for in relation to the specialist court because they are not ring fenced by being represented by senior counsel or counsel in relation to rape? Do you see where I am going with this question?

That is my understanding—thank you.

Is it your position, as per your submission, that the legislation should reflect Lady Dorrian’s recommendations, as they were?

You say in your submission, in relation to rights of audience, that

“the requirements on legal practitioners should match those in the High Court and that legislation should require them to be specially trained”.

I think that we are all agreed on that. Do you want to add anything to that?

I am not sure myself. Not being a practitioner, I am trying to understand the issue. If the specialist court hears a whole range of cases, including rape, that means that it will be parallel to the High Court, as Lady Dorrian envisages it. However, the crimes that will be indicted in the specialist court include crimes that would previously have been in the High Court and the sheriff court. Is it not the case that there are going to be some differences there?

For crimes that are not rape or attempted rape—

Do you not think that that might happen? It has been suggested that the results could be seen as a league table. If the pilot is run for a year and you look at the conviction rates—

Lord Matthews, you are quite right to say that those are questions for the Parliament to decide, but from where I sit it is not easy to make decisions on controversial matters. We are not practitioners, so your insights are really valuable. I thank you for the evidence that you have given so far.

On juries and the single-judge pilot, Fulton MacGregor is quite correct to say that it is perhaps not appropriate use of language to call it a pilot, because the Parliament could decide on a live trial.

It would be helpful if you could provide your insights and opinions on this scenario. The single judge would be writing up the evidence in the trial, but normally it would be left to the jury to decide what they do or do not believe. How straightforward would that process be? In any case, the law would be determined by the judge, but it would normally be for the jury to decide on the evidence. How would those written reasons be arrived at?