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

I see. You would evaluate conviction rates, in that case.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Does that mean that the answer to my question is that Scotland would still be an outlier but you are comfortable with that because we have other measures that other jurisdictions do not have? Do those amount to corroboration?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

No, but you can understand why I am asking the question if the argument for removing the not proven verdict is that Scotland is an outlier—we would still be an outlier if it was removed. I do not particularly have a problem with that, because I think that some features of our system are good. I just wanted to understand that.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Yes, I am not arguing with that point.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is helpful.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I have dealt with many families who felt similarly about murder trials, in that they had the same feeling of exclusion. That is not particular to rape trials.

We have heard the Lord Advocate say that she is very particular about changing the practice, and I see a drive behind that. That is good. However, Lord Advocates change and, in time, another Lord Advocate may take a stricter view about access to ADs and so on.

I will leave you with this thought. Is there any way in which you could enshrine that right of access to advocate deputes in some way? I do not need an answer to that just now, but this worries me: we are beginning to see chinks of light, which is really good, but that needs to continue—and the law is a tool. I was just wondering if you could consider how we could hang on to that right.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Thank you.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is helpful. We have to be open to that idea, since the Lord Advocate mentioned it, but I would have concerns about a provision that was wide in scope and gave the courts the power to decide. I would be more comfortable if you were thinking about a provision that was more tightly drawn in terms of criteria for the Crown.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

You have probably heard me ask questions about rights of audience, and that concern about a change to the rights of audience is shared by the senators. Forgive me, because, as a layperson, I am trying to fully understand this:

“Despite the restriction in relation to rape and murder, the types of cases where a solicitor would be able to represent the accused in the Sexual Offences Court could include ones which are currently prosecuted in the High Court. Thus allowing solicitors to represent an accused in a broader range of serious cases.â€

The bill will allow that to change so that a procurator fiscal depute cannot prosecute. That is in section 47(6). For some offences, rape and murder excluded, there will be a change to the rights of audience.

Surely you must realise that that will be seen as lowering the status of the court. We have the rules for a reason. We have had years of differences between advocates and solicitor advocates and who can represent an accused person who faces eight or nine years in jail. Did that proposed change come about by deliberate provision or accident?