���˿���

Good morning, and welcome to the 38th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have no apologies this morning.

Our main item of business is evidence taking on the Scottish Government’s intentions in relation to stage 2 amendments to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. We have agreed to hold today’s evidence sessions in the light of the importance of the proposed changes to the bill. We want to understand what various organisations think about the proposed changes before we look at the detail of those changes in the new year.

Our first panel of witnesses consists of organisations that represent victims of crime. I am pleased that we are joined in the committee room by Kate Wallace, who is chief executive of Victim Support Scotland. We are joined online by Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland. Regrettably, Louise Johnson from Scottish Women’s Aid has had to submit her apologies this morning, as she is unwell. However, we are advised that Scottish Women’s Aid has indicated that it will provide a written submission.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow around 75 minutes for the first panel of witnesses. I will try to group questions and answers around the different parts of the bill, and I will begin by asking an opening question about part 4.

The Scottish Government is now seeking support for a jury reform model that would have only two verdicts—in other words, no not proven verdict—and that proposes 15 jurors and a two-thirds majority requirement for conviction. I am interested in your organisations’ views on the proposed changes compared with what was in the bill at stage 1. I will come to Kate Wallace first and then I will bring in Sandy Brindley.

The Government has been very clear that the proposed change in jury size and majority would be a balancing measure. If the not proven verdict is removed with no corresponding change to jury size and majority, that could introduce an imbalance relating to risk around conviction. Do you accept that there is a need for a balancing measure to be included in the stage 2 amendments, as the Government has proposed?

Thank you for that. That is incredibly helpful.

I note that we have taken almost 45 minutes to explore one part of the bill, but I think that it was absolutely appropriate to do that. I would now like to move on to part 5 of the bill, which relates to the proposal on a stand-alone sexual offences court. In the cabinet secretary’s correspondence, she reaffirms her commitment to

“a standalone court that has the freedom to operate in a manner that enables it to both identify and develop changes in practice and procedure that will deliver meaningful improvements to the experience of sexual offence victims.”

She sets out some of the areas where she is proposing amendments, including legal representation for accused, security of tenure for sexual offences court judges and offering more choice to vulnerable witnesses with regard to giving evidence. I would like to hear our witnesses’ views on that provision and the amendments that have been proposed at this point.

There is a very quick point from Kate Wallace, then we will have to move on.

Given that there are no more questions on part 4, we will move to part 5, which relates to the proposals for a sexual offences court. In the cabinet secretary’s letter to the committee, she sets out her commitment to

“a standalone court that has the freedom to operate in a manner that enables it to both identify and develop changes in practice and procedure that will deliver meaningful improvements to the experience of sexual offence victims.”

The correspondence from the Government sets out a number of areas in which it proposes to lodge amendments at stage 2, such as legal representation for an accused, security of tenure for judges, and choice in how vulnerable witnesses can give their evidence. There is quite a lot of detail on what is being proposed for stage 2. What are your views on those proposals?

We got there in the end—thank you. I will bring in Rona Mackay and then Liam Kerr.

Okay—thank you.

I am watching the time. Let us move on to part 6. I will start with the Government’s update on the provisions around a pilot scheme for criminal trials of rape or attempted rape—in other words, a juryless trial pilot. The intention was that the pilot would take place in the High Court or in the specialist sexual offences court. It would involve a single judge delivering a verdict following a trial and providing written reasons for that verdict. That would be followed by a review and publication of a report on how it had operated.

You will both be aware that the Government indicated in its response that it would not go ahead with that proposal. It has indicated that it would instead be

“working on a range of legislative and non-legislative measures to explore and address the underlying issues the pilot was seeking to address.”

Over to you. I am interested in your responses to that update.

My follow-up question was going to be on the proposals that have been made in relation to the 1981 act and the proposals for research into jury deliberations, so it is helpful to have your views on that on the record. Kate Wallace, do you want to add any more on that?

Are there any other questions on part 6?

Ben Macpherson does not want to come back in. Does any other member want to come back in on part 4?