Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would like to clarify something. Earlier in your statement, and particularly during your response to Martin Whitfield, you said that you were “confident” that the courts will do something, that one of the amendments will possibly “impact on ... rights” and that you think that the

“amendment distorts the existing legal protections”.

Can you help the committee to understand whether you have received any formal legal advice that gets you to that position to reject the amendments, or is that just what you think?

Thank you.

Again, with the committee’s indulgence, I will speak to amendment 206, in Russell Findlay’s name. Mr Findlay apologises for not being able to be with us today due to other committee business.

Victims must be heard. Recently the Criminal Justice Committee heard powerful and moving accounts from six rape survivors. Those women described being

“treated as a bit of evidence”,

“not respected”, “treated with contempt”, feeling as if “I did not matter” and feeling like “collateral damage”. They also described the court environment as “threatening”, and one said:

“the justice system failed me more than the perpetrator”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 6, 37-8.]

It was astonishing testimony about what were all recent cases.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 gives victims of certain crimes the right to make a statement on the crime’s impact, to be submitted to court after a conviction and prior to sentencing to inform the judge or sheriff in their sentencing decision. That has since been extended, with victim impact statements now commonplace.

As I said last week, more serious cases will be dealt with by the panel, and the number of cases will inevitably increase with the raised age limit. One would think it obvious that a victim should be heard, regardless of whether they have been assaulted by an 18-year-old sent to a panel or someone older who is in court. Looking back, therefore, I would say that the arguments for victim impact statements as a principle have been made and accepted. Victims must have their say, regardless of the forum, and amendment 206 would ensure that their voices are heard and that important rights are not seen to be eroded.

Before you move on, can I intervene? I will not get a chance to sum up, so I offer an intervention.

They may be technical amendments, but surely the minister ought to put on the record why the amendments are necessary and have therefore been lodged, so that the committee at least can understand, and so that anyone who is reading the Official Report is able to understand in the future.

I just want to be clear about what is being proposed. The minister has suggested that there will be a round-table event to allow people to go away and consider all the issues. Meanwhile, we will be passing the bill as proposed at stage 3, which presumably will happen before the conclusions of the round-table event have come back. Will those conclusions be included later as amendments to what at that point will be the act? Is that correct, minister?

That is not quite what I asked, minister. I asked whether you had received formal legal advice when arriving at your position of confidence and thinking that the amendment distorts things.

The minister suggested that amendment 206 does not specify which cases it relates to. How does that position hold up when, arguably, it is specified because it is about cases that are permitted pursuant to section 15? Will the minister address that point?

Will she also address the point about time, which was made when my colleague Ross Greer intervened on me and I responded? There are matters that could arise between the initial statement that the minister has spoken about and any further statement. Will she address that point?

Ross Greer intervened on me and I thought that it was a fair intervention. He said that, if a statement has already been made earlier in the process, it could be argued that we are asking people to relive their trauma. My response was that the amendment would simply give the victim the option to make a further statement. You did not address that point in your remarks, so I wonder whether you could give us your thoughts about that.

With respect, minister, you can. I was saying that the amendment would give the victim a further opportunity. It is not about ethos; it is about offering a further opportunity. Why do you reject that opportunity being afforded?