Seòmar agus comataidhean

My first question is about DNA results. A survivor told us that the result took a year. I imagine that that is unusual, but is there a certain timescale window for DNA results? The survivor told us that the case could not proceed without that result. Are there any other concerns in the system about getting quicker evidence and DNA results?

I have a quick question for DCS Faulds. You talked about the specialist sexual offences liaison officers. Does every complainer get access to a specialist sexual offences liaison officer, or are they just here and there?

That was really helpful.

I want to follow up my previous question with a question for either DCS Faulds or Deputy Chief Constable Graham about the potential use of recorded police interviews, which the committee has heard about. How might that be taken forward? I recall such a thing as a precognition statement being taken from all witnesses, but that does not seem to happen any more, and I was just wondering what a recorded police interview would actually be in that respect.

I really welcome that. I would go so far as to say that, if that practice had continued in such cases, someone—I do not know who—should have been able to intervene and say no. It is so fundamentally oppressive to the victim for that to happen; I was quite shocked by it.

I want to ask about the specialist courts—this question may be for Danielle McLaughlin. Maybe I have not understood this correctly. Is there any reason why the specialist courts cannot be part of the High Court, or is that the intention? It is confusing. It has been suggested that the sentencing power should be 10 years. To my mind, that means that rape cases cannot be brought to a specialist court, because they must go to the High Court—unless you are going to tell me that I am wrong about that.

I support the idea, but I have some issues with a specialist court—I have to be honest about that. We have been here before, when there was a suggestion of grading crimes of rape. Obviously there would be concerns about any suggestion of downgrading if it looked as though such a case was going to a different court. I appreciate that I may not have understood exactly what is intended, but that is my line of questioning.

Including rape?

Do you see where I am coming from?

Are you saying that the specialist court is the High Court or not? We need to be clear about that. Either it is or it is not. If it is not, that means that it is not the senior court. You can disagree with me. I am saying that you cannot put rape cases in a specialist court—well, perhaps that is not the intention. There is obviously a difference between sexual offence cases, which are non-rape cases, and rape cases.

How is that lawful? I studied law, and I was taught clearly that rape cases are a plea to the Crown and must be heard in the High Court. Is that just a convention?

I want to flag something up, but I am not sure to whom the question should be directed, so I do not really expect an answer.

The Bonomy reforms have extended sentencing powers to five years in the sheriff court. At the time, Lord Bonomy was clear that that should not debar serious cases from having senior counsel. However, it is now virtually impossible to get senior counsel even for a serious case, because it is not automatic, as it used to be. In contrast, my understanding is that, for cases that go to the High Court, there would automatically be counsel.

I flag to everybody that, if rights of audience are an issue for the new specialist court, it will look as though those crimes are being downgraded. Somebody has to address that question somewhere, if you see where I am coming from. There are lots of complex cases in the sheriff courts that previously, before we changed the sentencing powers, would have gone to the High Court—you can check that with the Faculty of Advocates—and I would be concerned if the rules around rights of audience were to change.

I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether that could be flagged up to the partners in relation to the strategic review.

You have made it clear, and your comments were really helpful. I now understand the motivation behind it. Earlier, it sounded as though you were just going to implement the review, but you have made it clear that legislation would be required. That makes complete sense.