³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I think that I said that part 4 of the bill is very specific about this being a stand-alone reform more aligned to modernisation and transparency of decision making. Of course, the bill as a whole contains a number of measures on improving access to justice. We have collectively been focused on more access to justice for more women in the context of sexual offences and rape, given the really low conviction rate, particularly for some of the evidentially more difficult cases. This reform is about ensuring our system’s integrity and maintaining balance. All the evidence points to the fact that, if we move from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system, convictions will increase, hence the concern about miscarriages of justice and the interconnected discussion and debate around the jury majority.

I am well aware of the views of Scottish Women’s Aid. It has been consistent in its views, as has Rape Crisis Scotland. On the other hand, Victim Support Scotland and some of the other organisations that are involved in the victims task force, which I chair, along with the Lord Advocate, have been campaigning for a commissioner a long time. I have to be respectful to all voices.

It has been put to me that there is a gap, bearing it in mind that a victims and witnesses commissioner exists south of the border. Victim Support Scotland has, on a number of occasions, challenged me about that gap in Scotland. I am also mindful that action is being taken to strengthen the role of the Victims’ Commissioner south of the border. That is in line with what we are attempting to legislate for by bringing in a commissioner who has a particular responsibility around holding people to account. Our commissioner would, of course, be accountable to the Parliament.

I would be happy to do that. At a basic level, I am more than happy to lay out the case for the commissioner in detail, but I also have a manifesto commitment to deliver for victims and witnesses. I utterly appreciate the Parliament’s role in making final decisions but I will continue advocating as best I can for a victims and witnesses commissioner until the Parliament decides otherwise.

In the light of the removal of the pilot of juryless trials from part 6 of the bill, our approach will be twofold. Preparatory work is under way on setting up a working group to pursue a package of non-legislative actions. In relation to the bill, we intend to amend section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to allow research into real jury deliberations with appropriate safeguards, which will be important and pave the way for the gathering of more valuable insights that are not possible under the current legislative framework.

Of course.

We have borne in mind the issues that the committee raised at stage 1 on rights of audience and have given careful consideration to the committee’s recommendations. We will lodge stage 2 amendments to address those concerns. We have been quite explicit about the reasons for doing that.

There are three routes to counsel in the sexual offences court. I am happy to answer any questions about that, but I know that members have been briefed on it.

On who prosecutes, I am quite sure that, as it stands right now, that is a matter for the Lord Advocate. I have not brought forward any propositions to change that, as you would expect.

No, it is absolutely not. One of the biggest pieces of jury research that was undertaken in the United Kingdom looked specifically at Scotland and involved 900-odd participants. It was carried out over two years, and Lord Bonomy was involved as the presiding judge in the mock trials that were part of it. We also have the meta-analysis, which was shared with the committee further to one of my appearances. There is lots of data to show the consequences of having three verdicts rather than two.

It might be helpful if I remind the committee that the purpose of part 4 is to modernise the system. The jury-and-verdict system is not engineered to increase convictions—or, that is, increase convictions in particular offences. It has to be absolutely fair to all parties: victims and complainers, and the accused. That is the balance that we have to strike.

Therefore, my position, and the position of the Government, is that we need to look very closely, as we have done, at the evidence that we have, comparing our unique Scottish system with other, two-verdict systems, and make decisions on that basis. The abolition of not proven necessitates—in my view, and, I believe, in the view of the majority of stakeholders—a change in the majority itself, notwithstanding the debate about what the qualified majority should be. I imagine that that debate will continue through stages 2 and 3.

I do not have any plans for sunset clauses, but I would suggest that, in general terms, the committee has always been very focused on ensuring that the right reporting mechanisms are built into primary legislation. I am also very conscious of the comments of Elish Angiolini, who, when she gave evidence way back at the start of this process, talked about how the law is not static and how it constantly evolves. Indeed, you see that with High Court judgments on points of law and the outcomes of references made to that court. The law does not stand still. However, as far as this primary legislation is concerned, we have enough evidence for us to come to the decision that, in my view and in the view of other stakeholders, this is a credible and fair move that will give, and maintain, confidence in our system.

I will just add that the consultation responses, which I know were published a long time ago, came from a range of individuals, victims organisations, legal representatives and so on and more than 50 per cent accepted that, if we moved from three verdicts to two, we would need to move to a qualified majority. As for what that qualified majority should look like, the majority—not everybody, but the majority—pitched two thirds.

There are a number of layers to my concern about a supermajority. When we consulted on the bill—I appreciate that that was some time ago—there was low support for near unanimity in a reformed system. It was something like 13 per cent. It also feels disproportionate to go from a system that requires a little bit more than 50 per cent to convict to one that, in the context of a majority of 13 out of 15, would require 87 per cent.

The standard of proof is the standard of proof—there are no changes to that. It is worth bearing in mind that juries in Scotland are not told to strive for unanimity. The process is considered to involve an aggregate of individual votes as opposed to being a collective endeavour.

Another difference between Scotland and other systems with two verdicts is that Scotland does not have hung juries or retrials. Such options, should we proceed with reform to a two-verdict system, were not popular in our consultations. In short—forgive me, convener—in relation to near unanimity, there are still some differences in the Scottish system. Corroboration still exists, and there are no retrials in our system.