³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Do you see where I am coming from?

Are you saying that the specialist court is the High Court or not? We need to be clear about that. Either it is or it is not. If it is not, that means that it is not the senior court. You can disagree with me. I am saying that you cannot put rape cases in a specialist court—well, perhaps that is not the intention. There is obviously a difference between sexual offence cases, which are non-rape cases, and rape cases.

How is that lawful? I studied law, and I was taught clearly that rape cases are a plea to the Crown and must be heard in the High Court. Is that just a convention?

I want to flag something up, but I am not sure to whom the question should be directed, so I do not really expect an answer.

The Bonomy reforms have extended sentencing powers to five years in the sheriff court. At the time, Lord Bonomy was clear that that should not debar serious cases from having senior counsel. However, it is now virtually impossible to get senior counsel even for a serious case, because it is not automatic, as it used to be. In contrast, my understanding is that, for cases that go to the High Court, there would automatically be counsel.

I flag to everybody that, if rights of audience are an issue for the new specialist court, it will look as though those crimes are being downgraded. Somebody has to address that question somewhere, if you see where I am coming from. There are lots of complex cases in the sheriff courts that previously, before we changed the sentencing powers, would have gone to the High Court—you can check that with the Faculty of Advocates—and I would be concerned if the rules around rights of audience were to change.

I do not expect an answer, but I wonder whether that could be flagged up to the partners in relation to the strategic review.

You have made it clear, and your comments were really helpful. I now understand the motivation behind it. Earlier, it sounded as though you were just going to implement the review, but you have made it clear that legislation would be required. That makes complete sense.

I have two sets of questions. One is around the trial diets, and I have another question for Danielle McLaughlin about the specialist court issue.

Mr Fraser, what is your view on ensuring that rape cases have fixed trial diets as opposed to floating ones? I have dealt with such cases, and I have discussed a couple of them directly with you. One survivor had 13 different first diet dates—from any point of view, that is not acceptable. What would the barriers be to implementing fixed trial diets for rape cases, which would prevent the continual rescheduling of those cases?

You mentioned that the location could be moved, which has triggered a memory for me. One survivor told us that the trial, in what is quite a well-known case, was scheduled to be held in Glasgow—you can correct me if I am wrong—and, two days before the start, it was rescheduled for Livingston. To my mind, thinking about the logistics of getting to Livingston and having no support, that is an absolute no-no. I was really quite horrified to hear that.

I will not rehearse all the issues that you have already discussed with other members about drugs in prisons.

Some police officers in Police Scotland have been trained to administer Naloxone. Has any such provision been made in your staffing, and do you think it would be useful for your staff to be trained in administering Naloxone?

I will continue Rona Mackay’s line of questioning. Like her, I commend the strong words that you gave to the committee. I agree that there is a moral imperative for all of Government to consider carefully the disproportionate nature of gender-based violence against women. As you and the Crown Agent described, the unavoidable delays will have a serious impact.

You are also right to say that it is a political matter and, therefore, a matter for us to consider. However, I am interested in your opinion as to the length of the period in which there would be judge-led trials as an interim measure, if that were to be legislated for. Should it be one year or two years? Do you have any time in mind? I know that it is hard to judge how long the backlog will take to clear, but it would be helpful if you could tell the committee how long you think we would need those arrangements for before we reassess the situation.

Thank you for that. I will not pin you down on anything specific, but what is your general sense of what is needed? Is it additional staffing or additional space? As you say, the gym is not suitable for everyone. During the pandemic, some of us preferred walking, or had to walk. Perhaps more people do that now. Getting out in the fresh air just to be in the fresh air or to get exercise is vital, particularly for prisoners. Is this a staffing issue, a shift issue or an estate issue? Where could we make changes?