Seòmar agus comataidhean

I wanted to come on to discuss the pilot, as others have done. As a number of people have pointed out, the Government papers refer to the proposal as a “pilot”, but you are right to say that, if it takes place, it will be very real for complainers and the accused. The recommendations do not suggest that either the accused or the complainer should have any say on whether they should be part of the pilot. That is not to say that that will not be the case, but we do not have the details. Focusing on complainers—as it is a victims and witnesses bill that we are considering—what are your thoughts on that? Do you think that the victim or complainer at the trial—or even the accused—should have a say on that?

I have one final question. Returning to your exchange with John Swinney earlier, I hear what you are saying about the process and 97 per cent of your association not being comfortable. I want to ask the question in another way, however. I do not know how the pilot will work, but it will probably be carried out in a specific area. If you are representing an accused who is in that trial area and they say to you, or one of your members, that they want to go ahead as part of the pilot, where do you stand on that?

The reason why I asked that question goes back to something that you mentioned earlier, which I have brought up in previous evidence sessions. A few of us on the committee were surprised at some things that we heard from victims who came before us. I agree with you that they gave fantastic evidence. However, some of those victims, or complainers, who had gone through the process said that they would have preferred to have had a jury. That has led me to think about what complainers’ rights will be if the pilot goes ahead. Some people would choose to have a jury if they were offered that in the pilot; others would choose just to have single judges. What are your thoughts on that?

My question follows on from points made by others, including John Swinney and Katy Clark. Sheriffs across the country already preside over sexual offence cases. I appreciate that they are not as serious as rape cases, which is our main subject, but some sheriffs deal with very serious accusations or offences. That is like having a single judge so, on that basis and in light of what has been discussed today, is there an issue with sheriffs doing that? Do you believe that sheriffs are making the right decisions on the cases—even just the sexual offence cases—that go to the sheriff courts?

I agree.

Good morning, Lord Advocate. You have given a fulsome response on part 4 of the bill, so my question will be brief.

I know that this is primarily a question for the Scottish Government, but I want to know your views on why the proposals have been put to us. I am trying to understand where the link between getting rid of the not proven verdict and changing the size of the jury came from. I am sure that the Government will not call it this, but it is almost some sort of compromise—those are my words, not the words of the committee or the Government. I am trying to understand where that link might have come from, because every witness whom we have asked does not seem to have an answer to that.

Okay. I apologise for asking the question in that manner. I was thinking more about whether you see any benefits from removing the not proven verdict and changing jury sizes. I know that you have spoken clearly about jury sizes, but if the not proven verdict is to be removed, do jury sizes need to change? What I am asking is whether you would rather leave the jury sizes as they are.

I was going to ask about the pilot of juryless trials, but you covered a lot of that in your response to the convener, so I have only one further question.

A couple of weeks ago, we heard evidence that perhaps shocked us, when witnesses discussed juryless trials. Some indicated that they would have preferred that, but others said that they would rather have 12 or 15 people—multiple people—making the decision, rather than one.

Sometimes, when we legislate, or make changes to the justice system, we are doing things that we think will help victims and witnesses. What input should victims and witnesses have to any pilot as we look for the best way forward?

I will tie all my questions together. I do not know whether it would be far too difficult to do—the idea has just come to me between meetings—but should victims, witnesses and complainers have a choice? Juryless trials could be piloted, but people who want a jury could have one. We heard clear evidence from some witnesses who said that they would have wanted a jury and would not have wanted a single-judge trial.

I am asking about victims and witnesses because this is the victims and witnesses bill. A pilot of juryless trials seems like a good idea, but I am trying to take into account the fact that there might be different views on that.

I am not thinking about a choice further down the line; I am thinking about the pilot. That pilot would involve real victims and witnesses and real accused people, so we must be careful about seeing it just as a pilot. Given that this is the victims and witnesses bill, is there scope for saying to people who are part of the pilot that they could still choose to have a jury trial?

Thank you. As I said, I had more questions on that subject, but I think that you have covered them.