The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will automatically update to show only the łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of łÉČËżěĘÖ and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3579 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
I will bring in Sharon Dowey in a moment, but I want to pick up on Sarah Ashby’s concern about judge-only trials. I was having a quick look through the submission from Rape Crisis Scotland, which has articulated things quite helpfully in respect of the scenario in which there is a judge only and no jury. It said:
“A written verdict could be a very positive development for complainers.”
In other words, if a case were to be heard by a judge only, they would have a responsibility to set out reasons for coming to the decision or the verdict that they came to. The submission goes on to say:
“A judge would be required to give reasons for a decision. Some survivors describe the lack of any explanation for a jury’s decision as distressing because it means they are never able to understand what happened.”
The written judgments from other cases seem to have added some weight to that.
Do you feel that such an approach might reassure survivors as to the merits of a judge-only trial? I am not putting words in your mouth; I am just interested in whether you feel that it might provide some reassurance.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 13:14.Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you very much. With that, I will bring in Sharon Dowey.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
I open up the session to members, starting with Rona Mackay.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Pauline McNeill is next.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you, Hannah. Finally, does Sarah want to say anything?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
We have around 10 minutes left. At this point, I will bring in Pauline McNeill.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you very much. You spoke specifically about defence lawyers. The committee is aware of, and understands, the fact that there is a need for improved trauma-informed practice across the whole criminal justice system, from the point that somebody contemplates making a disclosure to the conclusion of a court case, because the whole justice system could be involved in a case.
I am interested in your views on two things. Do you think that a whole-system shift in trauma-informed practice is essential, rather than there being a piecemeal approach? I am also interested in your thinking around a trauma-informed environment—for example, the committee has spoken about the way in which traditional court buildings can be intimidating. Hannah, perhaps you can start by outlining your thoughts on how we embed trauma-informed practice across such a large system.
09:15Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
Thank you, Hannah. That was well articulated.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 17 January 2024
Audrey Nicoll
I warmly welcome our second panel of witnesses. As I mentioned at the start of the meeting, it is very important to hear the views of survivors of sexual crimes who have personal experience of the criminal justice system, so the committee is interested in hearing your perspective on what is being proposed in the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. On our second panel, we have Sarah Ashby, Hannah Stakes and Anisha Yaseen. Welcome to you all. We are very grateful that you have been able to join us this morning. I intend to allow around an hour for this session. If you would like to answer a question or come in on anything, please raise your hand or indicate to me and I will bring you in.
It might be helpful if I open with a question that I put to the first panel of witnesses, about trauma-informed practice. As you will know, the bill introduces a requirement that victims and witnesses
“should be treated in a way that accords with trauma-informed practice”.
Is that needed—and why?