łÉČËżěĘÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 15 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1673 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

I would not expect you to.

In my previous question, I slightly conflated non-jury trials with the sexual offences court. Will accused people be compelled to take part in the juryless rape trial pilot, or will they be given a right to object or not take part?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

The position is that no accused and, indeed, no complainer can choose their court, whether they are taking part in the pilot or not, and yet we heard from rape victims who—perhaps to some people’s surprise—said that they would have preferred, and did prefer, having a jury. In that case, given the trauma-informed ethos of the entire legislation, would their views be taken into account?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

No, she was not. She agrees with the bill’s provision, which is a two-thirds majority.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

To continue that line of questioning, the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate—perhaps unsurprisingly—support the proposal for the two-thirds majority, but they want to go further than that. If, for example, seven out of 12 people believe that the accused is guilty, they would like to have the power and the mechanism to seek a retrial. They say that they are in discussion with the Scottish Government about that. Have you taken that on board? Are you likely to amend the legislation to include that provision, or do you think that that would further exacerbate the concerns of those who I referred to in my initial question?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

We heard evidence yesterday to that effect.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

No, no.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

Are you going to change the bill?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

So it is not off the table; it is being considered.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

“Brief questions” is my middle name, convener.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The not proven verdict is likely to be on its way out, but part 4 also deals with jury sizes, as we have heard. In reducing the number of jurors from 15 to 12, we will require eight out of the 12 to reach a guilty verdict, as we have also heard. That would be inconsistent with just about every comparable jurisdiction worldwide, which requires either unanimity or 10 or 11 out of 12.

We have received a comment from the Faculty of Advocates that that would be

“an international communication that Scotland places less value on protecting its citizens accused of crime than any and every other nation with a jury system.”

More surprisingly, perhaps, Professors Fiona Leverick and Eamon Keane told us that they oppose the eight out of 12 jurors proposition in the bill. I struggle to understand why the Scottish Government wants to get rid of one international anomaly—the not proven verdict—and, in effect, replace it with another, which is the two-thirds majority in a jury of 12.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Russell Findlay

I know that we have moved on from the previous part of the bill, but I found Alastair Bowden's testimony to be quite staggering in respect of his explanation for not having data on how juries are split. The bill that is in front of us will fundamentally alter juries, yet we do not know anything about how they have previously been split, and the Government’s rationale appears to be that we do not need to know what were called the fine-grained details, and that the public and the media perhaps cannot be trusted to know. Katy Clark’s questions yielded a further question: even if that is the case, why on earth can researchers not get that basic information? I find it mind blowing that we are being asked to radically alter jury sizes and jury ratios when no one in the criminal justice system has sought that information.

10:45  

I have one question about part 5 of the bill with regard to trauma-informed practice. I know that the issue is central to part 2, but it also features under the provisions in relation to the sexual offences court in part 5. In evidence to the committee last November, NHS Education for Scotland said that its five-part definition of being trauma informed was not being used in the bill. Two parts of its five-part definition had been omitted, and it said that that might hinder the effective implementation of the bill’s other elements. Cabinet secretary, when I asked you whether you would consider its request to think again on that, you said that your door was always open. Has NES been through your open door? Have you agreed to its request for the five-part definition to be part of the bill, or have you now ruled that out?