Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That is really helpful.

I said to the previous panel that most of us are laypeople so are a bit unfamiliar with a lot of practices, certainly in relation to prosecution policy. Broadly speaking, when you are marking a case—for example, a rape case—I presume that there is some guidance for prosecutors on how to decide whether the evidence is there to take a case forward. Is it harder to do that in rape cases than in other cases?

Do you think that it would be a good use of the Parliament’s time to take through the necessary legislation to allow for research such as that done by Cheryl Thomas?

My final question is about the numbers on the jury if the not proven verdict were to be removed. The profession would prefer a unanimous jury but would accept, as in England, a majority of 10 to two. I understand that your fundamental position is to retain the not proven verdict. Ronnie Renucci, can you talk the committee through what, you think, the Crown would have to show in order to get a conviction? To a layperson, you are saying that the jury is required to have a unanimous verdict before you could convict, and that sounds like it would be really difficult to get a conviction, whereas a majority of 10 to two seems to allow for it. However, of course, we do not understand how juries operate or the proceedings of a court.

That is helpful. Finally, given the hundreds of cases that you have—

I understand most of it, but I just want to clarify that, as the proposals stand—not for the other suggestion—it is still the Crown’s position that there should be the option of a retrial under the Government’s proposal for a majority of eight to four. Would you still argue for that?

That is in your seven to five scenario.

Good morning. Have you any comment to make on some of the evidence that we have heard on the use of not proven in rape cases? I am trying to understand this. There is the use of not proven in not guilty verdicts in rape cases, and then there is the comparison with other crimes, which, I imagine, will look different. Is there anything that you can tell the committee from your experience or practice about the use of not proven in rape cases? Do you have any concern that it is used too often, or do you have no concerns at all?

Finally, your submission suggests that, if there were an increase in the majority that is required for a jury to convict, consideration should be given to the prosecution being able to seek a retrial where the higher majority is not reached. Is that your policy position? In other words, are you arguing for that anyway? Why would you not argue for having a retrial policy in the current verdict system? How radical a suggestion is that? From a layperson’s reading, it seems quite radical to introduce that question. While we have been debating the three verdicts and the majorities, you have thrown into the mix the idea that there should be scope for a retrial. I have absolutely no idea how radical that is. If you could speak to that, that would be great.

Earlier, you said:

“If you accept that the not proven verdict might be contributing to wrongful acquittals”.

The Government has not said that. That might explain where it is coming from. The Government has explicitly said to the committee that it is not, through the proposals, trying to make any change to the number of acquittals.

I have a few questions for Sandy Brindley. Would you accept that the committee has been asked to scrutinise the issue and to make a decision in relation to all cases, not just rape cases?