The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1586 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Does that mean that in the High Court a case would be prosecuted by an advocate depute, but in another court that could be done by either an advocate depute or a procurator fiscal depute?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
It is on cause shown.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Just for completeness, section 46 allows the prosecutor or accused to say that they do not want to be heard in the specialist court and that they want to be heard in the High Court or the sheriff court. Given what you have said and the evidence that you have given the committee already, it sounds to me as though, whereas at the moment there are rules on where cases can be heard, under the bill there will be no rules at all. In fact, the provisions would mean that the prosecution and the defence would just work it out amongst themselves in which court the case is heard. If that is a concern, at least legislators should have the confidence to say with certainty what cases will be heard in which courts. However, if we pass the bill, it would be completely a matter for the court system to decide where cases are tried. Is that fair to say?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Can I stop you there? I am trying to get this straight in my head. That is a different question. How juries are directed or trained is an entirely different measure as to the outcome. A single-judge pilot is quite a different measure. Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
That was very helpful.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Thank you.
In your submission, you talk about something that has not been mentioned until now—the use of pre-recorded evidence under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I think that the suggestion is that that provision is being used more readily in Scotland than it used to be, and it seems to be going well. It gives victims and witnesses the opportunity to give evidence outwith court. Does your evidence suggest that we should look at whether that is impacting on conviction rates? You seem to be saying that, where pre-recorded evidence is used under section 28 of the 1999 act in England and Wales, it has an impact on conviction rates. Is that right?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
I understand that, but as one of the parameters is to ascertain the effectiveness of the change, there must be one or two benchmark measures. I am struggling to see what they would be.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
Good morning, Professor Thomas. My first set of questions are to you. In your submission—this is on page 9 of committee paper CJ/S6/24/4/1—you talk about why there appear to be substantial differences between England and Wales and Scotland in both jury trial outcomes in rape cases and juror attitudes. You have already explored that with the committee, but I want to focus on how you have qualified that. You say in your submission:
“there is a lack of clarity in Scotland about jury conviction rates.”
Am I correct in saying that, because we do not have clarity on the conviction rates, it is very difficult to come to a determination on which of the two factors results in that apparent difference, or are you suggesting that you would not really expect to see substantial differences between the two systems?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Pauline McNeill
However, the two issues that you have brought to the committee are the lack of clarity on conviction rates and your concerns about our drawing conclusions without any baseline knowledge of how juries actually work. Would that be fair?