Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

There has been a suggestion that a single point of contact for complainers might reduce the scope for complaints about communication—I think that Lady Dorrian said that in her report. Is that practical? What would be the relationship between that point of contact and Victim Support Scotland?

I have listened to the evidence, and I will not go through all the testimony again, but I understand that there have been a lot of communication failures. A single point of contact could be a way of solving that. Do you think that it is practical to bring that in, and who would do it? I thought that Victim Support Scotland already did that, but maybe it does not have the capacity to contact the police and the Crown. A complainer cannot just pick up the phone and ask the fiscal what is going on; they probably would not even know where to find the number. Somebody has to do that for them. I just wonder who you think should do it and whether it would be practical.

Those are helpful answers. It is clear that, if we want to pursue the issue, there is quite a bit of work to be done to strengthen the right to be heard, on which I agree with the Lord Advocate. The question is how we can make that happen through legislation. Also, I note what the Lord Advocate said about women being “turned away” by the legal profession, so there is a lot to be done in that respect.

I have one remaining question, given the shortage of time. If we legislated and created the right for the complainer to be fully represented at a preliminary trial where sexual history evidence is asked for, albeit that there are issues with the timescale, I take it that the Crown would have no objection to dealing with what is in effect a third party representing the complainer? Mr Harvie, as the Crown Agent, would you be happy to deal with a third party on this matter?

I am interested in the line of questioning that Colette Stevenson started regarding independent legal representation, and in the Lord Advocate’s answer. It is a critical area for the committee to consider.

I note that the Lord Advocate said that there is already a right to be heard on a section 274 and 275 application where the application relates to medical records. Should that right apply more widely than medical records? I would have thought that, if an application is made to use evidence of sexual history at a preliminary diet, the complainer should have an interest in the whole application, not just medical records.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Cabinet secretary, we had a really interesting and good exchange with David Fraser last week on what a specialist court is. Are you satisfied that, in legislating to create a specialist court—as I understand you have to do—it would not look like we were downgrading sexual offences. According to one view, we are being told that the court would be part of the High Court, but we would need to legislate to create a specialist court. It is a bit unclear. I think that I am right in saying that the bench consists of about 32 to 35 judges, who deal with rape cases every day, I would have thought. We need some clarity on why we need a specialist court and on what that specialist court would do.

I can see the case for a court that treats victims differently. We have heard evidence on the trauma that victims experience in going to courts that are not equipped, spacewise, to ensure that they can enter the building without coming across the person they have accused of a crime. Could you provide any clarity on that view? Do you have any concerns about what legislating for a specialist court might look like, as having at most 10-year sentences might look like a downgrading of sexual offences?

You said in answer to Collette Stevenson that there were sexual offences liaison officers to take statements when it was more suitable for the victim. Does that happen in every rape case?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am not going to draw you into a policy discussion about this issue, but I would like some clarity. As I understand it from the reports in The Times, what we are talking about here with regard to what Police Scotland has said is not a trans person per se but an accused person presenting as a woman for the purposes of the alleged crime. The issue is about Police Scotland seeming to protect that rather than someone who had previously identified as a woman. There needs to be clarity on that—although I will not draw you into that today.

The deputy chief constable said that the Scottish Government was going to provide clarity on that point, but I was not sure what he meant by that. Did he mean that you are having on-going discussions? I am just wanting an answer to that: are there on-going discussions, or was the deputy chief constable referring to the gender reform legislation or to something else? Could you tell the committee what he meant by that?

I finish by asking the cabinet secretary to read the press release from Police Scotland after today’s meeting. It is in the Times article, and it makes an implication about anyone who presents as a woman. Perhaps the police did not mean to say that, but that might be something that you would want to discuss with them.