Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

You said that the similarity is that children and adults can waive their anonymity. What is the difference between them when it comes to telling your story? Do you have to go to court in order to tell your story?

I just want to check that I have understood how the provision applies.

A child under the age of 18 can go on TikTok and talk about their experience as a child victim. That can be shared, presumably, because they are sharing it themselves. Are there any lines there between publishers and other people being able to use that content?

That is where I am having some difficulty. Russell Findlay raised this question.

My understanding of Scots law is that not knowing is not generally a defence. You cannot say, “Oh—I didn’t know what the law was.” I do not know how the law can make a distinction between your auntie and anyone else.

I know what you are trying to say; the auntie should have known that the person was under 18, so yes, that would be the ordinary understanding of it. However, we are legislating here, and we need to get these bits right, so it exercises me a little bit that the defence seems to be extremely broad. My concern is that other people with an interest might use that defence more widely.

You do not think that a good lawyer could drive a coach and horses through that last defence, because it is extremely broad.

That is interesting.