³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Skip to main content
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 12 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1264 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

So, we will always be an outlier—is that what you mean? We will always be different.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Well, let me help you then. We have established that it will not be the High Court. It will be a national court with wider sentencing powers, but in the hierarchy of the court system, it will not be as high as the High Court—is that right? It cannot be.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is because that confuses people. You previously said that you are not trying to alter the rate of conviction but that you are trying to change experiences. That is what I had always understood. Since we do not have any criteria—am I correct in saying that, or could you republish them?—I do not know what the criteria for assessing the single-judge pilot is.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I was trying to establish whether the committee is aware of that research. I do not know that we are. You said that that research says that the removal of the not proven verdict would increase convictions, which is at odds with what the Lord Advocate said last week. John Swinney, in his line of questioning, expressed concerns about the Lord Advocate saying that she thought that it would result in a lower conviction rate. Your research shows otherwise. The problem that I have is that I would like to have put that research to other witnesses. Did we miss that?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Lady Dorrian specifically said that she thought that it should be a parallel court, but you did not go for that. Why is that? I hear what you are saying, and I totally support the Government in seeking to change the experience and do things differently, but why did you not adopt Lady Dorrian’s suggestion that it should be a parallel court? If you had, we would not be having an argument about whether you have lowered the status of sexual offences. Do you see what I mean?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

There would be. The SPICe briefing is clear. It would be helpful if Andrew Baird could answer that.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

For reasons of workload, you decided to broaden out the scope of who could represent accused persons in cases that are not rape and murder. Is that fair to an accused person, who would not necessarily be represented by an advocate or solicitor advocate when they previously would have the right to be?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I would welcome further discussion on that. I know that Katy Clark has a supplementary question.

This is an important issue. It is a significant proposal. If the issue is not resolved, I would have difficulty in supporting the provisions in the bill, to be perfectly truthful with you.

I have mentioned this issue previously and I apologise for mentioning it again, but when we increased the sheriff court’s sentencing powers in 2004, the Legal Aid Board eventually refused to sanction advocates for cases that previously would have been heard in a higher court. Ask any of the profession. The problem is that, unless the Legal Aid Board gives you assurances, accused persons who would otherwise have been properly represented by senior counsel or junior counsel will, by your admission, no longer be automatically entitled to that representation. If you leave it to the Legal Aid Board, the same thing will happen that happened in 2004—serious cases that are indicted in the sheriff court will no longer attract a higher level of representation.

We will be throwing the baby out with the bath water if we do not close the door on that. The cabinet secretary opened by saying that she does not want the sexual offences court to be seen as a lower court, but it will be if we do not resolve these issues. I would be happy if—

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I want to examine how the single-judge trial would operate. You have had questions from the convener and Russell Findlay about how the pilot will be assessed. Will you publish what you are looking for? There is some confusion. At least three of our witnesses, including Professor James Chalmers, seem to think that you will measure conviction rates. It is not just the Scottish Criminal Bar Association that thinks that that will be one of the assessment criteria, but you have clearly said that it will not.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I agree.

Lastly, I am trying to piece together the different legal forms, because they connect quite a bit. I take it that, if you were to set up a specialist court, it would be possible that a single judge would sit alone in a specialist court without a jury and with two verdicts.