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 1673 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Good morning. I am not sure whether this is declarable, but I have previously been a witness in Lord Matthews’s court—
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
That is actually very pertinent to another point about section 275 applications. Some of the rape complainers said that, in their cases, the defence had not formally sought a section 275 order, but that they introduced character or sexual history evidence by stealth, by simply stating it. The presiding judge then told the jury to disregard it, but the complainers were of the view that the damage had already been done at that point.
Does that happen frequently? Is there any sanction for doing that? Do you think that, if independent legal representation in relation to a section 275 application became enshrined in the law, there would be more likelihood of such tactics?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I have a very quick question. The bill picks the age of 18, but the age differs in other jurisdictions. You say in your submission that that is potentially the most contentious element of the proposal, and you suggest—colleagues may agree—that we should seek further evidence from children’s rights experts. That brings me back to the earlier point about the need for greater scrutiny. I know that you do not want to delay anything, but, given that you are not settled on 18, if I understand you correctly, do you believe that we should take more evidence on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I think that the proposal that 16-year-olds can stand as łÉČËżěĘÖ has been binned, but yes.
12:30Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 31 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I ask because I think that that information would help the committee to understand the judicial thinking. In respect of some of the other proposals, there is a lot more certainty or specific detail on the breakdown of opinion. For example, the vast majority oppose the not proven verdict being retained.
In the senators’ 2022 submission to the Scottish Government, the breakdown is two to one in respect of abolition of corroboration, which is no longer on the table. From your evidence earlier, the senators’ view in respect of not hearing murder cases in the proposed new sex crime court seems to be unanimous.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Russell Findlay
It was about how the lack of similar research data in Scotland makes it very difficult for us to assess the proposals.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Have any of you picked up any sense from the Scottish Government that, in the face of all the opposition that there has been, there might be some movement on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Russell Findlay
Professor Thomas, do you want to come in on my original question? I went off at a slight tangent.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Russell Findlay
In respect of whether your research shows evidence of rape myths among jurors, does it do that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 24 January 2024
Russell Findlay
I thank the witnesses for coming to the committee. The submission from Professors Chalmers, Leverick and Munro refers to your research, Professor Thomas, from 2020, saying that it is sometimes cited as evidence
“that jurors do not believe rape myths”,
but that that interpretation is untrue and that the research does not actually demonstrate that. They point to alternative New Zealand research from 2022, which they say “found considerable evidence” of rape myths among jurors. Will you clarify what your research actually found, and do you agree with Professors Chalmers, Leverick and Munro’s assessment of it?