Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would it not be fair, therefore, for the Government to look at the majority issue?

I totally acknowledge that. However, it is that issue that I am questioning you on. Conviction is possible on a majority of one. Surely, without any bias in favour of one view or the other, you can see that, if one of the verdicts is taken away, it would be fair to look at the ratio of the jury, in order to create a balanced system. You might come up with a different answer—such as eight or 10—but is it not fair to look at the issue?

Good morning. This is complicated—I will say that.

I apologise if my questions do not make sense, but I will try my best.

When you explained the mock trials in your answer to the convener, you talked about the way that mock juries view a not proven verdict against a not guilty verdict. You said that, in cases in which the juries would say, “We just do not think the evidence is there,” they would select not proven. When we are looking at the issue, it is important to frame it in the context that, as well as explaining the differences between the verdicts, the judge will give direction to the jury.

Is it fair to say that the presence of reasonable doubt is key? The jury will be told, “When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict.” If you work back from that, is it fair to say that, if a juror had doubts about conviction, either way, the verdict that they would give would not be guilty? Is it fair to say that that context is quite important?

I want to examine a paragraph on page 6 of our paper 1. It says:

“In respect of the changes to the majority required for conviction, we say in the Criminal Law Review article that ‘the Scottish Jury Research [found] that jurors were more likely to favour conviction in a system of two verdicts than when the not proven verdict was available.’”

I will just read it out. The paragraph continues:

“Given proposals elsewhere in the Bill to abolish not proven and reduce jury size, without parallel reform to the jury majority requirement, this would have seen the Government proposing the combination of variables identified as most proconviction in that research ... The policy choice [made by the Government in the Bill] was a difficult one.”

The next part of the paragraph is where, for me, the complexity lies. It says:

“Raising the majority required to, say, ten out of twelve would run the risk that other reforms targeted, at least in part, at the low conviction rate in sexual offence cases may be thwarted.”

The cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, has said that the reforms are not targeted specifically at the low conviction rate.

But the important point is that we have three verdicts and a simple majority, is it not? The reason for allowing a simple majority is that we currently have three verdicts.

I have a final quick question on corroboration, which Eamon Keane mentioned. There has been a bit of discussion about the retention of the requirement for corroboration. Would you have further concerns if we removed that requirement under the current proposals in the bill, which would mean having a qualified majority and two verdicts?

It is not. It is just that some witnesses, and people with an interest, have said that they have had discussions with the Government about their views on corroboration. There has also been recent commentary from the judiciary. Who knows where we will end up on that? I just point out that there has been talk.

Which is?