Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would seem so.

My understanding with regard to jigsaw identification is that that is why we are legislating for anonymity in the first place: so that you cannot piece things together and say, “It must be that person”. We are talking about the defences. You are clear that you do not have any concerns that a good lawyer could drive a coach and horses through the last defence that you described.

Good afternoon. I have a number of questions about your submission.

I want to start with the specialist court. Lady Dorrian’s report suggests that it should be a division of the High Court. If it was a division of the High Court, perhaps we would not need all these exchanges about rights of audience and whether sheriffs could sit in it. Do you think that the Government has overcomplicated the situation with what it has put in the bill?

The case is the same in section 55, which says that provision for procedures of the court could be made by regulations.

You described a hierarchy of courts, in which you do not see the sexual offences court as provided for in the bill. Section 46 of the bill says that, “on cause shown”, a case can be transferred from the sexual offences court to the High Court or the sheriff court. Does that speak to the point that you are making? Does section 46 indicate that the sexual offences court would be a lower court than the High Court? Is that fair?

Next, I want to ask about section 39(6), which allows the Scottish ministers to amend by regulation both the definition of sexual offences in section 39(5) and the list of sexual offences in schedule 3 to the bill. That gives me cause for concern, particularly since a justice committee of the Parliament in 2009 did a reform of the crime of rape. It seems extraordinary that we do not have primary legislation for such changes, but anyway, I ask you to speak to that.

Interestingly, I do not know whether it is connected, but section 46, on where the case is tried, allows the accused to apply for the case to be heard in a different court.

It appears so, because under section 45 it says that the prosecutor, the defence or even the sole application of the accused can ask, “on cause shown”, for a transfer to another court.

Then there are two distinct measures here. One is about what we do with juries with regard to trauma-informed practice, but there is also a distinct proposal for a single judge to sit. That is what my question is about. I am struggling to see how you could judge the effectiveness of that measure.

I understand that, yes.