Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that frank and robust response. My follow-up question was going to be about how you will review that to find out when you are at the right place. However, you have answered that.

The Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is interested in looking at that area, too. I am a member of that committee, and I know that its convener and clerks will look at that response to see whether it helps them to direct any future work. I thank you for your frankness. You have not tried to hide anything.

Everybody around the table knows that the issue is not necessarily about the majority of individual officers, who are doing a fantastic job throughout the country, but as the report identified, and as the previous chief constable and you have said, it is more of an institutional culture. I think that Dame Elish Angiolini referred to a cafe culture in her report.

That certainly reflects my experience as an MSP of police officers I meet through my job and people I know personally.

The other issue that I want to ask about is the police’s trauma-informed practice, if that is all right, convener—I hope that I am not standing on any toes in doing that. We hear a lot more about that as we take bills through the Parliament. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has a specific section on trauma-informed practice for the various justice organisations. We have already heard evidence that there is good trauma-informed practice in the police. The joint investigative interviews, for example, are key. However, there are other things that could perhaps be done better in dealing with victims and witnesses as they interact with the justice system. What are your early thoughts on that? What needs to improve, or what is already good and can be built on?

Thank you for that.

I have a second question on this issue. I think that I hear what you are saying about the acquittals: you are worried that they will come not only from the current pool of not proven but, because of the higher threshold, from the current pool of convicted. I think that you have already answered this question, so you can be brief—as I am sure that the convener will be glad to hear. What if we, as a Parliament, decided—for want of a better phrase—to get rid of not proven, but left the jury numbers as they were? Do you think it possible that that might result in the reverse of your concerns occurring and, as many in the legal profession have similarly raised concerns about, lead to wrongful convictions instead? Are you concerned or worried about that? I am just putting that out there.

Good morning to the panel.

I want to go back to something that Stuart Munro said in his previous answer. It is something that we have certainly heard before in taking evidence over the past number of weeks. He said that there is no difference in outcome between the not guilty and not proven verdicts. For the benefit of laypeople MSPs, if there is no difference, why do we need the extra verdict, considering that no other system has it?

That brings me on to my second question. All three of you have talked about balance. Do you have a fear that, if the Parliament gets rid of the not proven verdict, either the number of wrongful convictions will increase or the opposite will occur and more people will walk free when they are actually guilty? You have talked a lot about the not proven verdict being needed for balance, but what would happen if the balance, as you are calling it, was taken away?

You said that some of your American colleagues were shocked about our system and wondered how it achieves acquittals. I want to make a point about the Scottish jury research—I am trying to find the information so that I get the figures right—which I know that other colleagues want to ask about. According to the study, undertaken in 2019, when juries had two verdicts available to them, they returned three out of 32 convictions, and when they had three verdicts available to them, they returned four out of 32. Acquittal is very high, it would seem.

Okay. Thank you for that. So that I do not feel the wrath of the convener, I will just give Stuart Murray an opportunity to answer my earlier question.

That brings us back to Russell Findlay’s point that a lot of this lacks, for the reasons that you have outlined, research and data, and we are not able to understand what juries think. As Russell and others have said, the committee has, over the past few weeks, begun to feel the weight of the decisions that are being put on us now. These are significant changes, and one thing that we do not want to do is make things worse for people who use the justice system, particularly victims and witnesses.

Good afternoon to you both. This has been a really interesting session so far. The conversation has moved on, but I want to go back to provide you with an opportunity to clarify the position for the record and for me, so that I understand it.

You have stated clearly that you are worried about an increase in the number of acquittals under the current proposals. I seek clarification on that, because, in the previous evidence session, we heard about the number of convictions, acquittals, not proven and not guilty verdicts. Are you worried about those that are currently not proven, or are you also worried about the numbers that are currently being convicted? Can you clarify the point on the increase in acquittals?

Good morning. I have a follow-up question to the convener’s line of questioning. Joe Duffy, as you said, the two verdicts mean virtually the same thing: not proven—