³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It relates to the sexual offences court, not the pilot.

There is a cost to addressing and responding to the increasing demand caused by sexual offences cases. The figure for the sexual offences court relates to the additional costs that are specific to the proposed changes. That figure might change, depending on operational decisions about, for example, court rules.

The sexual offences court will have unlimited sentencing powers and will deal with a wide variety of cases. It is important to put on the record that it will have the maximum sentencing powers and will deal with a broad range of cases.

Regarding numbers, we know that the number of solemn cases is increasing. Lisa McCloy, do we have any further information about the numbers and categories of cases that will go to the sexual offences court?

We are always willing, convener, and we want to engage with members collectively and individually on causes that are dear to their hearts. My one word of caution is that I have found that, when people say that something will be simple, it usually never is. However, we are always more than happy to have discussions, and I am sure that members will test the scope of the bill that is in front of us, too.

It will be around £600,000 in start-up costs and £600,000 in recurring costs. It might be a little over that, say, between £600,000 and £650,000. Perhaps you can bear with me while I look at my papers.

Yes—one-off costs will be up to £638,719 while recurring costs will be up to £615,149.

From my previous discussions with Ms Clark, I have no doubt that we will debate that matter further. Ms Clark has shared with me some very interesting research and different models from elsewhere, and I have no doubt that she will continue to press me on those matters at every stage of the bill.

On the approach that we have taken thus far and our position right now, the change is a substantive one. The model relating to automatic legal representation and how complainers access it timeously is still being developed. We are working with a range of justice partners, and there is the work of the Emma Ritch law clinic, too. As I said, it is a substantive change, and it will be a demand-led change, so estimating its cost is somewhat challenging. The budget will be demand led.

I have some caution at the moment, because we are living in the reality of resource implications. A point was raised earlier about how we will ensure that we deliver. The focus should be on delivering the proposition in an accessible way that supports women to have their voice heard, and in a way that could provide a platform for further change and reform. Given the importance of implementing legislation and of bearing costs in mind, I have a significant degree of caution right now, but I look forward to hearing more and to the sharing of experiences and evidence from further afield, because that is important.

That provision is intended to seek clarity and certainty for complainers at the earliest opportunity and to increase people’s confidence to come forward and report offences and make complaints in the first place. We all know that the evidence is that sexual offences in particular are underreported, and providing for security of anonymity is part of increasing people’s confidence to come forward.

It is important to have clarity that anonymity is automatic from the start, so that people know that they do not have to go through a process to get it; anonymity would be automatic from the time of the offence. Significant research and thought has gone into that provision. I point to the work of Andrew Tickell and his colleagues and students at Glasgow Caledonian University. They have led much of the campaign for automatic lifelong anonymity. For particular sexual offences, as well as for offences relating to female genital mutilation, human trafficking and other very sensitive offences that have a particular bearing on people’s physical integrity and privacy, the provision would support confidence in the system but also support people to come forward to report offences in the first place.

Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to colleagues.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee at the start of its deliberations on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is landmark legislation. The bill puts victims and witnesses of crime at the heart of our justice system. It contains an ambitious package of reforms to modernise processes and improve the experience of victims and witnesses, particularly in relation to sexual offences. It does so while continuing to safeguard the operation of key principles of the justice system and protecting the rights of the accused.

The bill draws on a wide body of evidence. It has been informed by the work of the victims task force and the independent cross-sector review of the management of sexual offence cases by Lady Dorrian, who is Scotland’s second-highest judge. It is informed by the groundbreaking 2019 Scottish jury research study, which was led by leading academics, and it follows two public consultations that demonstrated broad support for the measures in the bill.

Crucially, the bill has been shaped by survivors and victims and their families. They have told us that they often feel unheard and cannot access information, that they do not feel safe, and that they often do not experience compassion.

The bill therefore represents a transformative approach to build a more modern, responsive, sensitive and person-centred justice system that will ensure that victims of crime are treated with compassion and that their voice is heard. Trauma-informed practice is key to that. That means ensuring that those who work in our justice system recognise the impact of trauma on those whom they deal with and, where possible, adapt processes to reduce the risk of retraumatisation.

The justice system has been widely engaged in that work, as is evidenced by the launch of the trauma-informed knowledge and skills framework earlier this year. The bill provides a legislative underpinning for the cultural and procedural change that is necessary to embed the practice, and I would like to briefly take you through the rest of the bill’s measures.

There is clear and compelling evidence that the not proven verdict is not well understood, and that it can result in stigma for the acquitted and trauma for complainers. The bill will abolish the verdict to improve the fairness, clarity and transparency of decision making in criminal cases. We have carefully consulted on the other distinct features of our jury system and have concluded that in a reformed system with only two verdicts a requirement of a two-thirds majority for convictions is appropriate. To enhance the quality of deliberation, the bill also seeks to reduce the jury size.

The bill increases protections for vulnerable parties and witnesses in civil cases by extending the use of special measures and by protecting those who have suffered abuse from being cross-examined by their abuser. It will create a commissioner who will provide an independent voice for victims and witnesses, too.

The bill also aims to ensure that justice meets the needs of victims and survivors of sexual offences—the majority of whom are women and girls—by addressing, in a practical way, the long-standing concerns about how the system operates for sexual offending.

As the committee knows, the challenges that society faces to eradicate violence against women and girls are urgent and complex. Part of the solution is in ensuring that we have a justice system that commands confidence. That means a system that encourages victims to come forward, supports them to give their best evidence and holds those who commit such offences to account. The bill provides an opportunity to put in place significant and meaningful reform.

The creation of an automatic lifelong right to anonymity will protect the dignity and privacy of victims of sexual offences, and the right to publicly funded independent legal representation strengthens the rights of complainers in an especially intrusive aspect of criminal procedure. The sexual offences court will improve the experience of complainers through more use of pre-recorded evidence, improved judicial case management and mandatory trauma-informed training, and the new court will also help to reduce delays in cases coming to trial. The time-limited pilot of single judge rape trials will provide evidence and inform debate on how to deliver meaningful access to justice for complainers in cases of rape.

I want to ensure that victims and witnesses are at the heart of our justice system, and I hope that, in the debate and discussion on the bill, we bear that in mind, and that the discussion is measured and constructive. The undertaking that I give to committee members and others is that, in my contributions, I will do everything in my power to ensure that we have a debate that is of the very highest standard. As always, I remain committed to working with members, partners, stakeholders and—importantly—people with lived experience, to ensure that the legislation achieves its aims.

I look forward to the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. Thank you.

Although, by and large, we do not need legislation to train a workforce, we do need it to helpfully define what we mean by trauma-informed practice and we need legislation that puts duties on courts, the Crown and the police to ensure that trauma-informed practice is woven into their standards of service.

We also need legislation in order to establish a sexual offences court and to establish the rights of complainers when there are applications under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to ensure that complainers can access their right to be heard and to legal representation.

I suppose that what I am trying to indicate, Mr Findlay, is that there are broad platforms of reform in the bill that need legislation to drive them forward. I would expect the policy memorandum to speak about the more cultural aspects that underpin legislative change and that, of course, involves training staff.

I assume that your question is broadly focused on the bill as opposed to the pilot. Over the years, the committee will have heard that legislation on its own can never be the single bullet. It was not long ago that the Parliament debated the work that is being done around the trauma-informed skills framework for everybody who works in justice services.

However, at the core of Lady Dorrian’s deliberations and recommendations is the need to make seismic, structural, statutory changes, and those can be seen in the statutory changes in the bill, whether that is the sexual offences court, the automatic right to independent legal representation or the automatic right to anonymity.

We can graft on changes, but the process becomes quite iterative and slow, and there is a degree of frustration in the legal sector and in organisations that represent victims that we have been in the same territory for about 40 years on some of the issues that we are discussing in relation to the experience of complainers and the prevalence and power of rape myths. There have been numerous reports pointing to the substantive problems; now we need to move forward and make substantive changes.

I contend that the legislation does have a degree of specificity around trauma-informed practice. We need to recognise the context in which it will be applied. We often discuss in committee debates how much detail the Parliament wants to put in the bill and how much scope we want to leave for those who have to implement the bill in practice.