Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me, but I like to visualise things. It could be, then, that the specialist sexual offences court could meet in what would be Glasgow High Court, but it would be called something else. It could still involve judges that would have presided over those cases in the High Court. Am I right in saying that?

I understand that.

First, I commend you for the work that you have done and the way that you have presented it to the committee.

It is clear that there is a need for change—I am absolutely clear about that. I want to give some context to my question. You have made the case for a specialist court, but I am interested in where it would sit in the hierarchy—excuse my terminology, but that is the way that I see it as a layperson. I am interested in what the status of the specialist court would be and whether you think that the bill as drafted reflects what you had intended in your report.

For example, the report says that the rights of audience in a sexual offences court should be limited to advocates and solicitor advocates, but that is not reflected in the bill. Given that I convened the committee at the time, I can go as far back as the reforms when Lord Bonomy not only produced the report on preliminary hearings but proposed extending the sentencing powers of sheriff courts. There is a parallel here for me. What sticks in my mind is that, when he proposed extending the sentencing powers of sheriff courts to five years, he was clear that the sanctioning of counsel for serious cases should still be allowed. You will know that it is now very rare for counsel to be sanctioned in the sheriff court.

I think that there is a very good case for having the specialist court, but my concern is about the change in the rights of audience if the court is created. Under the bill, solicitors would be able to represent an accused person not in cases of rape or murder but for serious sexual offences. Do you have any concerns about whether the bill reflects what is said in the report about maintaining the high status of the court? How do you see the status of the specialist court in relation to the High Court?

Thank you very much for your insights. I know that you have been involved with this for a long time, and I thank you for that, too.

I was surprised to hear you talk about a two-tier system. Could you elaborate a bit more on that? In my lines of questioning to the Lord Advocate and Lady Dorrian—and I was very content with their answers—I was suggesting that an important distinction would still have to be made with regard to the seriousness of crimes. Indeed, that is why we have a High Court and a lower court—that is, the sheriff court. My understanding is that cases go to the lower court, because they do not require to go to the High Court. When you talked about the system being two-tier and the proposed court creating a level playing field, were you referring to the trauma-informed aspect? It would concern me if it were being suggested that we wrap up all the crimes into one court, given that some are more serious than others.

I will not go into this today, but aspects such as rights of audience and who prosecutes will, by necessity, involve the creation of two tiers.

The point, convener, is that at the moment it is not a decision for the prosecutor. Murder is automatically tried in the High Court. No Lord Advocate or prosecutor can take it to any other court, because it is the highest court. My concern remains.

I realise that my question should be directed to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because the bill leaves it open for a prosecutor to allow the prosecution of a murder in the sexual offences court. That is a matter for the cabinet secretary.

Is that your evidence?

I misunderstood what you said to Russell Findlay.

If the bill were passed, the rights of audience would change. That would mean that sheriffs could sit in the specialist court, although they cannot sit in the High Court at the moment—