Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I understand that, but a judge or sheriff also say, “If you’ve got any reasonable doubt in your mind, you shouldn’t convict.” Is that right?

Good morning. I will start with Joe Duffy.

First, thank you for your evidence. You are quite convincing on the issue of whether the not proven verdict is well explained. I do not have a strong view either way on the verdict, so I am just listening to the evidence.

I turn to my first question. When the judge gives directions to the jury, they will presumably, as well as explaining the three verdicts, say, “If you’ve got any doubt in your mind, you shouldn’t convict.” Some people think that if we strip away one of the verdicts, it is more likely that we would simply get more not guilty verdicts. I wonder what you think about that.

I want to establish what happens. We are all lay people here—

—so we are only going by what we understand. The judge would normally direct the jury by saying, “If you’ve got reasonable doubt”. Would you accept that?

Would you acknowledge that the committee is required to look at changes that affect all trials, including for rape, murder and everything else?

Yes, I have acknowledged that—

You then have to decide from there. In the current system, if you have that doubt, you choose which verdict to give.

I note your point about the Faculty of Advocates. Last week, we heard evidence from Professor Fiona Leverick, who expressed the same concerns about removing the third verdict, or one of the verdicts. She said that she was concerned about the current proposals because they are out of step with the rest of the world. I wondered whether you had heard that.

I was just asking whether you knew what Fiona Leverick had said to the committee. She is not from the Faculty of Advocates. I was just pointing out that she gave that evidence to the committee, and we have to consider it.

Thank you—that is a fair point.

Lastly, aside from the three verdicts, you do not see why the current system should change. Is it fair to highlight, however, that we currently have three verdicts and that that is why—as Joe Duffy said earlier—we convict on a majority of one? At present, someone can be tried and convicted of murder or rape on the difference of one vote. That is the reason why, if we were to remove one of the verdicts, the Government would also look at the ratio of the jury. Is it fair to say that we should look at the ratio if we take away one of the verdicts?

I realise that that is not where you are coming from—you just feel that there should be more convictions. However, we must look not just at rape trials but at all trials.