Seòmar agus comataidhean

Following on from what Sharon Dowey said, I have a question for Professor Chalmers. Given your academic expertise, could you tell me how a pilot would look at this issue? How should the pilot be assessed and where should the voices of victims and witnesses be heard in the assessment of the pilot? The reason why I ask is that, when we heard from victims last week, a number of them, quite surprisingly—to me, anyway; I do not know about other committee members—said that they were not in favour of juryless trials, because they felt that it was better that a larger number of people were making the decision.

Good morning to the witnesses who are online and to you, Professor Thomas. I was going to ask some questions in a very similar area to those asked by Sharon Dowey. With the convener’s permission, I will still take the opportunity.

I have what I suppose is a simple question for our online guests on judge-only trials. In your academic opinion, do you think that having a single judge to determine such cases, as opposed to a jury, is better?

I have a final question for Professor Thomas. First, Professor Thomas, thank you very much for coming up to Scotland, and I am sorry that you feel that your research is coming under so much scrutiny. We are delighted to have you here—the fact that we have invited you indicates that we want to hear more about your research. It is just a sort of scrutiny process, so apologies if it sometimes comes across as a bit harsh. We are making really big decisions here, so we want to hear about your research.

I want to ask you the opposite end of the question that I just asked. I know that your research was in England and Wales. Rather than tell me what the positives would be of having a single judge, can you tell me what you found were the positives, if any, of having a jury make those decisions?

My questions are also around the pilot of juryless trials. I know that the issue has been widely covered, but I want to ask your opinions on what the pilot should look at and assess. We heard in the previous evidence session that such a pilot would be further down the line and that its remit and considerations would need to be given more thought. I know that that is mostly for Government and politicians to look at, but given your expertise in the area, have you thought about what sort of parameters the pilot should look at in answering whether it is making the system better for victims and witnesses and for the accused?

I come back to a point that Russell Findlay made to you earlier, and which I made in the previous session. It is that there was an element of surprise at some of the survivors’ evidence last week on the proposal to have a single judge. The witnesses were more reluctant to approve of that proposal than I had perhaps anticipated. Therefore, I will put to you the question that I put to the academics earlier: what role should be given to victims and witnesses in the assessment of the pilot?

I know that we are coming to the end of our evidence session, so I do not need everybody to answer if they do not want to. I am happy to take nods from anyone who wants to come in.

Okay. Thank you very much.

The bill is about victims and witnesses, and the panellists have said that we should be considering the experience of victims and witnesses. Without putting aside some of the evidence that we heard last week, which Russell Findlay and I mentioned, I think that most of us and the Government have been convinced that the proposal to have a single judge on rape trials is a way to try to make things better. What would victims and witnesses—not the accused, the legal profession or anybody in the Procurator Fiscal Service or anywhere else, but victims and witnesses, or complainers, as you have been referring to them—lose by there not being a jury?

Do you not think that much of what you said there points to the need for the pilot? I think that the pilot is key. If anybody else wants to come in to answer it, I suppose that that is what my question is getting at. We have given the whole of section 6 a good hearing today, but my question is about the pilot.

If we, as a committee and a Parliament, are to pass the bill with that provision intact, what should we do in the pilot? Based on your expertise in the area, what should we look at? Professor Chalmers said that we should look at conviction rates, but, as we heard from Pauline McNeill when she went back to him on that, the Government has been saying that that is not a main aim of the bill. What should the pilot try to assess?

Thank you for the evidence that you have given so far. I know that we are tight for time—and it might well be hard to answer this question in the time that we have—but I have asked the convener for permission to ask about part 4 of the bill. Only Sandy Brindley has had the opportunity to come in and speak to us in person about it, although everyone has had the opportunity to contribute a submission. I therefore want to ask about this part of the bill—Sandy, you can come back on this, if you wish—but I must ask the panel to be as brief as possible, even though I know that that might be difficult.

We have been asked about the not proven verdict, and I am pretty sure that I speak for most people when I say that we accept the reasons why it should not be there and that it seems a bit of an anomaly in the system. However, it feels that, with this bill, we are being asked to remove not proven at the same time as we are being asked to change the size of juries with regard to the delivery of verdicts. I think that I and others are struggling with that balance, because none of us wants to take away not proven only to make the situation worse. I do not know whether that will happen—I do not know what the research says about that—but I want to ask for the panel’s views on the issue.

Given that you have already contributed on this matter, Sandy, I will start with the others on the panel, but I will give you an opportunity to come in, too. Emma, do you want to speak to this issue? I should have said that panel members can respond only if they want to.

Thank you very much for your evidence so far, which has been powerful. I cannot overstate how helpful it will be to the committee.

Our conversation has moved on a wee bit since then, but my question goes back to what Hannah Stakes said about there being a screen that you did not want. I found that very interesting. As Pauline McNeill and Rona Mackay will remember from the previous parliamentary session, when the Justice Committee pushed for stuff such as the introduction of screens, we heard that even when the justice system gets things “right”, it is still not being flexible. It is almost as if, when the authorities are doing the right thing, they are forcing that on to you, because that is what Parliament and other people want. I told the convener that I would keep my questions brief, so I will ask them now. Is there an issue about flexibility in the justice system, even when it is perceived to be taking the better approach? How could we change that through the bill?

Thanks very much for that. That was very powerful.