³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Skip to main content

Language: English /

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 7 May 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1190 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

Right. Is that data sharing between the multiple organisations that are already involved and the victims?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

So it is not really that accessible at the moment.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

I am trying to understand what we are doing at stage 2. What changes are we making? I will get to the delivery model, which I want to ask you about. Would you characterise it as changing people’s experience? Will it be more supportive? What are you trying to achieve?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

You said that it is technical, so, even when we see it, we will not know which delivery model you are going for.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

We will be asked to vote for the framework, and we will then hear which delivery model you have—

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

Okay, so it is quite tricky. You want to move at pace, and I can understand why, as there is a lot of interest in the matter. As a committee, we are certainly very interested in it, and we want to work with the Government. However, how soon after the implementation of the technical aspect at stage 2 will we see what the delivery model will look like?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

I did not fully understand, Michael, what you meant when you addressed the question of reasonable doubt. The point was made to the committee recently that, if possible, we want a jury to act as a collective in coming to a conclusion. That is what we are aiming for, rather than it being a set of individuals who all vote. I had not considered that point previously, but now I think that it is really important.

Will you explain a bit more what you meant when you talked about what would happen if the jury thought that the accused probably did it, but there was reasonable doubt? I did not fully understand that point.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

My primary concern—as you might have read—about the setting up of a specialist court is that I do not believe that the Government can fix the problem of rights of audience, which it accepts is a problem. I put that specific question to the Government at stage 1, with regard to how it would ensure that the representation that currently exists in the High Court and the sheriff court would remain as is. The Government said that it would lodge an amendment to address that, but I do not see how it can be done. I seek your view on that.

When we changed the sentencing powers of the sheriff court from three years to five years, a promise was given that it would still attract counsel for those cases that would previously not have been heard in the sheriff court. Obviously, if cases are heard in the High Court, they automatically attract counsel.

That is where I think the flaw is with regard to rights of audience. If we set up a specialist court as part of the High Court, it is quite clear that the rights of audience remain the same. If we set up a specialist court of the sheriff court, the rights of audience remain the same. I would like you to answer that point.

I will conclude with this. I recently learned of a case that was, I was told, indicted as assault with injury to life, and it went to the sheriff court. As you will know, if it had been indicted to the High Court, the representation would have been different—the practitioner’s view was that it was an attempted murder and not an assault with injury. The Crown is deciding how it is indicting these cases, and where cases do not go to the High Court, they do not get the representation that the system intended.

I have serious concerns. Do you have those concerns, and do you think that the issue can be fixed? That is the fundamental question. Is there a way of ensuring that those cases that would be likely to attract more than a five-year sentence would still attract representation by counsel, or not?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

I will do my best, convener.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Pauline McNeill

We will have to vote on this pretty soon. What I am trying to understand from both organisations is what you would like us to argue for in relation to the jury size. Give us some guidance on that. That is what I am trying to get to, because if we do not want to be an outlier, we either go with the English position or we do something that is completely unique to Scotland, which is what we have.

Do I conclude that you would prefer the bill not to go through? I am just surmising. There has obviously been a lot of discussion behind the scenes. That has concluded with the Government changing its position to a jury majority of 10 to five, which is what the senators had asked for; it is not what the committee had concluded. I am just trying to understand where you would like the committee to be at stage 2. If you cannot change the Government’s position, is that fatal enough for us to vote against the bill?

10:15