Seòmar agus comataidhean

I said this to the Lord Advocate, as I was trying to envisage in my own mind what the court would look like. Given the rise in sexual offences that we know about, the new specialist sexual offences court will be substantially large. Does that suggest that there might be a shift in resource to it? What discussions have you had with the Government about the resource implications of its proposal?

Lady Dorrian, I will put this question to the senators when they come, but given that the convener asked about juryless trials, I will ask you. Am I right in saying that, normally, the jury would decide the evidence that it believed but that the judge would decide the law? Does that mean that, in a juryless trial, the judge would also decide on the evidence? Does that mean that there is a different process for a judge to go through in a juryless trial because they would not normally decide the evidence and the jury would make those decisions?

Thank you. I think that that is what those interested would expect. In the many proposals in this Parliament over the years about how we should deal with rape cases, maintaining the seriousness of rape, which currently can be prosecuted only in the High Court, has been really important. It is important to me, certainly, and, I know, to many others. Should we legislate to ensure that, because a future Lord Advocate might take a different view? That would be my worry. I am very content with your answer, but I am interested in protecting that fine line. I can think of cases that should, in my opinion, have gone to the High Court, but that fine line—because of the seriousness of the offence—has not been understood. I completely take the point that there are many factors to consider, but I feel really strongly that there should be no change to who prosecutes, who has rights of audience and who represents the accused, even if we are changing the nature of the court. Could you respond to that?

Thank you very much. Some of us attended a round-table discussion with Rape Crisis Scotland. As you would expect, and as you have said in your evidence, we heard that the experience of rape and sexual offences victims is just appalling. However, one survivor who came to the round table had had a completely different experience, which was very recent. She talked about how she got some time with the advocate depute and her positive experience. I take from that that perhaps there are already some changes in the system.

I appreciate all the implications for resources in asking this question, but is being able to have a meeting with the advocate depute prosecutor a standard practice? I have heard of cases where victims have sat in complete frustration in the court because they feel that the prosecutor has not mentioned something that is really important. I fully appreciate the independence of the practitioner and realise that that is an important principle, but should there be more exposure of victims in relation to the prosecution of their cases?

So it could be in Glasgow High Court, but it would be called something else.

I think that you have, in relation to the trauma-informed aspect. However, I would like some more clarity. An important distinction—we have had this exchange previously—is that rape cases can go only to the High Court. In a sense, therefore, a two-tier system is a legislative necessity, because of the seriousness of those kinds of cases. I worry that it is being suggested that there is something wrong with having two tiers of crime, as is currently the case. I think that you are saying—if I have understood you correctly—that the level playing field approach concerns the specialist nature of the crime.

Would a murder case with a sexual element go to the High Court?

That is exactly the point. Who do I need to address that question to? I do not understand why that would be consistent with what the bill is trying to achieve. Do you see what I am saying? We have heard evidence about—

My final question relates to that. There have been many discussions in the Parliament about how we tackle the crime of rape, for which there seems to be a low conviction rate. It looks as though the specialist sexual offences court would not have the same status or the same rights of audience as the High Court. I assume that it has been designed that way to reflect the status of rape as a serious crime that, as a plea to the Crown, can be tried only in the High Court. If the bill does not reflect your recommendations about rights of audience, will you be concerned that the specialist sexual offences court will look like a lower court?

Thank you. Stuart Murray, you had an exchange with Katy Clark about the research that the Government is relying on. The policy memorandum is quite clear that the evidence used for removing the verdict is the research involving 900 mock jurors. Do you think that the Government would be taken more seriously on that research if we addressed the question of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and, perhaps, as a part of this bill, legislated to allow research to be done on juries and trends in juries and how they come to their decisions?