Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. My final set of questions is for Ronnie Renucci. You have probably seen some of the exchanges in the Official Report of this committee in relation to the three verdicts, including last week’s evidence from Joe Duffy and Rape Crisis Scotland. In your opening remarks, you talked about what the Crown had to prove. Do you think that there has been enough discussion about how the judge charges the jury, if you like? Rather than debating the cold, clinical aspects of removing a verdict, would it be more useful to discuss what the jury is actually asked to do when it is deciding on a conviction?

But that is what the provisions are.

But the Crown is not satisfied with that.

If you are right and there would be public concern, why does the Government not just legislate for a majority of seven to five?

I know what you are saying, but the legislation would not say that, if it were passed.

You have said quite a lot.

Good morning. I put my first question to Stuart Munro. The question of the three-verdict system has long been debated in Scotland. You might remember that Michael McMahon, a Labour Party member, introduced a bill on the issue many years ago. If the Parliament decides to retain the not proven verdict, do you think that we will always be discussing the three-verdict system, given that it is unusual? Secondly, do you think that the Government’s rationale for changing it is clear?

Yes, thank you. None of us, apart from Katy Clark, has practised criminal law in the courts, so we are learning as we go. What I am really driving at is this: is it fair to say that the instructions that the jury will be given will be primarily around the Crown proving its case beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, the first question is not about what verdict you are going to choose. Is it fair to say that the jury will be directed to decide guilt or innocence, and then have to decide which verdict is appropriate?

I have one final question for Ronnie Renucci. We have been hearing that the not proven verdict is used a lot in rape cases. Have you any comment on whether, in your experience—I realise that this is just your evidence—there is a tendency for not proven verdicts in rape cases?

I understand. Do you have any view on why that is?