Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given that there is more work to be done around the modelling of the pilot, which you have articulated well, and given all the factors involved, will there be an opportunity, assuming that the bill is passed, for all stakeholders—those who are supportive and those who have expressed concern—to come together to find a pilot process that at least tries to meet some of those concerns? Can the bill be amended to make that point and ease some of the concerns, given that there seems to be a 50:50 split on the proposal, even in Lady Dorrian’s review group?

It feels as though single-judge trials could work and could be good, but perhaps the period between the passing of the bill and the implementation of the pilot should be seen as an opportunity to bring people together. Indeed, the bill says as much just now, and the defence lawyers and other folk who have raised concerns could have an opportunity to engage at that point. Have you thought about that? Could that be done?

Good morning to you and your officials, cabinet secretary. I had questions on the link between the removal of not proven and the jury changes that are being proposed. However, you have given a good account of that, and the Government’s thinking on it is now a wee bit clearer in my mind.

We have heard some evidence that the changes to the majority will make convictions more difficult. I know that you and your officials will have heard that evidence. Not everybody who has been in front of us has said that, but a large body of evidence says that removing not proven and bringing in the jury changes will make it more difficult to get convictions in such cases. What is your and the Government’s response to the issues that have been raised? What is your thinking? Do you, too, believe that to be the case, or are you confident that it would not be the case?

I accept that. Finding that balance is a very difficult job for the Government and the committee. Obviously, concerns have been raised that getting convictions under the system could be more difficult. Is there anything built into the bill that would review whether the approach is working, getting convictions has become more difficult, or the approach is leading to more miscarriages of justice or whatever? Is anything built into the bill to review the legislation if it is passed?

Okay, thank you.

I am trying to make this clear for myself. The main issue for you and your association is the seriousness of cases, not the ability of a single judge. It is about the seriousness of the consequences and you believe that a jury is more likely than a single judge to provide a fair trial for the accused.

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.