All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 929 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Rona Mackay
Would the member acknowledge that Rape Crisis Scotland and women’s organisations were in favour of such trials and would he also acknowledge that this is an example of the Scottish Government listening to voices from across the board and, far from being a humiliating U-turn, shows the Government working with members?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Rona Mackay
I will repeat what I said last week. I understand your argument, but I do not think that anything different will happen unless the new court is set up, because it has not happened so far. Previously, the need to set up a specialist court for sexual offences was not recognised, but now we have an opportunity to do it. It would be a wasted opportunity if we do not do it—I do not think that there will be a change in how courts operate unless the new one is set up. However, as you said, perhaps that is a difference of opinion.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 2 April 2025
Rona Mackay
I understand what you are saying, and I totally agree with that. I am now a bit confused about whether you approve of the setting up of a sexual offences court and whether you recognise that it is to be set up because of the very specialist nature of the crime and the huge increase in such crime.
I understand your argument about the same judges being in different courts but, even for representation reasons, do you not agree that setting up a specialist court is our way of saying that something must be done about this? I am now unclear about whether you want the court.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I am listening carefully to what you are saying, but my fear is that if we do not do this, nothing will happen. We all agree on the need for sexual crimes to be dealt with by specialists and recognise the horrific rise in the number of those crimes. Do you not think that it is a step in the right direction to recognise that and to say that we are going to do something about it? I hear what you are saying, but nothing will happen if we keep the situation as it is.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I fully support amendment 233 and am glad that Karen Adam lodged it. Do you agree that the amendment could include Makaton and deafblind communicators?
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
You are supposing that. You are not basing that on any facts or any evidence.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I hear your point, but I come back to the point that I made to Liam Kerr. The amendment that you are proposing is far more radical, and there is no evidence of its benefits. We are saying that there should be a balance. We have come to a sensible balance with a jury of 15, so the jury size will not change, and I think that that is a safe road to go down. I think that common sense—let alone any evidence that there may or may not be—tells us that your supermajority idea would make convictions harder to get, so I cannot support your amendment 92.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
There is no evidence for your position, either.
Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I go back to an earlier intervention that my colleague Katy Clark made on Sharon Dowey, who talked about a lack of evidence. Would you not concede that your position on a supermajority would be a radical change without evidence? You are saying that we cannot make a change because we do not have evidence, but you are proposing a radical change with a supermajority.
You referred to the bill at stage 1 proposing a jury of 12. We now need to accept that we are talking about a jury of 15, with a majority of 10. Getting rid of the not proven verdict is universally popular. Given that, do you not agree that the Government is striking the right balance by keeping the jury size at 15 but requiring a majority of 10? I think that your solution presents a much greater risk of making it much harder to get convictions. It is far more radical than what has been suggested.
10:30Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 26 March 2025
Rona Mackay
I have already said, in my intervention on Liam Kerr, some of what I was going to say, but I have a question for Sharon Dowey. On amendment 92, you talked about how unsatisfactory the mock jury research was. Do you know how many people were involved in that? I know that it was quite extensive. I acknowledge what you said about it being a mock jury trial, but there was a lot of research and evidence.