³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Thank you very much.

Cabinet secretary, we had a really interesting and good exchange with David Fraser last week on what a specialist court is. Are you satisfied that, in legislating to create a specialist court—as I understand you have to do—it would not look like we were downgrading sexual offences. According to one view, we are being told that the court would be part of the High Court, but we would need to legislate to create a specialist court. It is a bit unclear. I think that I am right in saying that the bench consists of about 32 to 35 judges, who deal with rape cases every day, I would have thought. We need some clarity on why we need a specialist court and on what that specialist court would do.

I can see the case for a court that treats victims differently. We have heard evidence on the trauma that victims experience in going to courts that are not equipped, spacewise, to ensure that they can enter the building without coming across the person they have accused of a crime. Could you provide any clarity on that view? Do you have any concerns about what legislating for a specialist court might look like, as having at most 10-year sentences might look like a downgrading of sexual offences?

You said in answer to Collette Stevenson that there were sexual offences liaison officers to take statements when it was more suitable for the victim. Does that happen in every rape case?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I am not going to draw you into a policy discussion about this issue, but I would like some clarity. As I understand it from the reports in The Times, what we are talking about here with regard to what Police Scotland has said is not a trans person per se but an accused person presenting as a woman for the purposes of the alleged crime. The issue is about Police Scotland seeming to protect that rather than someone who had previously identified as a woman. There needs to be clarity on that—although I will not draw you into that today.

The deputy chief constable said that the Scottish Government was going to provide clarity on that point, but I was not sure what he meant by that. Did he mean that you are having on-going discussions? I am just wanting an answer to that: are there on-going discussions, or was the deputy chief constable referring to the gender reform legislation or to something else? Could you tell the committee what he meant by that?

I finish by asking the cabinet secretary to read the press release from Police Scotland after today’s meeting. It is in the Times article, and it makes an implication about anyone who presents as a woman. Perhaps the police did not mean to say that, but that might be something that you would want to discuss with them.

My first question is about DNA results. A survivor told us that the result took a year. I imagine that that is unusual, but is there a certain timescale window for DNA results? The survivor told us that the case could not proceed without that result. Are there any other concerns in the system about getting quicker evidence and DNA results?

I have a quick question for DCS Faulds. You talked about the specialist sexual offences liaison officers. Does every complainer get access to a specialist sexual offences liaison officer, or are they just here and there?

That was really helpful.

I want to follow up my previous question with a question for either DCS Faulds or Deputy Chief Constable Graham about the potential use of recorded police interviews, which the committee has heard about. How might that be taken forward? I recall such a thing as a precognition statement being taken from all witnesses, but that does not seem to happen any more, and I was just wondering what a recorded police interview would actually be in that respect.

I really welcome that. I would go so far as to say that, if that practice had continued in such cases, someone—I do not know who—should have been able to intervene and say no. It is so fundamentally oppressive to the victim for that to happen; I was quite shocked by it.

I want to ask about the specialist courts—this question may be for Danielle McLaughlin. Maybe I have not understood this correctly. Is there any reason why the specialist courts cannot be part of the High Court, or is that the intention? It is confusing. It has been suggested that the sentencing power should be 10 years. To my mind, that means that rape cases cannot be brought to a specialist court, because they must go to the High Court—unless you are going to tell me that I am wrong about that.

I support the idea, but I have some issues with a specialist court—I have to be honest about that. We have been here before, when there was a suggestion of grading crimes of rape. Obviously there would be concerns about any suggestion of downgrading if it looked as though such a case was going to a different court. I appreciate that I may not have understood exactly what is intended, but that is my line of questioning.

Including rape?