łÉČËżěĘÖ

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 14 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: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

Just for completeness, section 46 allows the prosecutor or accused to say that they do not want to be heard in the specialist court and that they want to be heard in the High Court or the sheriff court. Given what you have said and the evidence that you have given the committee already, it sounds to me as though, whereas at the moment there are rules on where cases can be heard, under the bill there will be no rules at all. In fact, the provisions would mean that the prosecution and the defence would just work it out amongst themselves in which court the case is heard. If that is a concern, at least legislators should have the confidence to say with certainty what cases will be heard in which courts. However, if we pass the bill, it would be completely a matter for the court system to decide where cases are tried. Is that fair to say?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

Can I stop you there? I am trying to get this straight in my head. That is a different question. How juries are directed or trained is an entirely different measure as to the outcome. A single-judge pilot is quite a different measure. Is that right?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

That was very helpful.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

Thank you.

In your submission, you talk about something that has not been mentioned until now—the use of pre-recorded evidence under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

I think that the suggestion is that that provision is being used more readily in Scotland than it used to be, and it seems to be going well. It gives victims and witnesses the opportunity to give evidence outwith court. Does your evidence suggest that we should look at whether that is impacting on conviction rates? You seem to be saying that, where pre-recorded evidence is used under section 28 of the 1999 act in England and Wales, it has an impact on conviction rates. Is that right?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

I understand that, but as one of the parameters is to ascertain the effectiveness of the change, there must be one or two benchmark measures. I am struggling to see what they would be.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

Good morning, Professor Thomas. My first set of questions are to you. In your submission—this is on page 9 of committee paper CJ/S6/24/4/1—you talk about why there appear to be substantial differences between England and Wales and Scotland in both jury trial outcomes in rape cases and juror attitudes. You have already explored that with the committee, but I want to focus on how you have qualified that. You say in your submission:

“there is a lack of clarity in Scotland about jury conviction rates.”

Am I correct in saying that, because we do not have clarity on the conviction rates, it is very difficult to come to a determination on which of the two factors results in that apparent difference, or are you suggesting that you would not really expect to see substantial differences between the two systems?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

However, the two issues that you have brought to the committee are the lack of clarity on conviction rates and your concerns about our drawing conclusions without any baseline knowledge of how juries actually work. Would that be fair?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

Would you see objections from the profession if, to change the experience of victims, it would be a requirement for the victim to be able to speak to those legal representatives—however it is legislated for?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 24 January 2024

Pauline McNeill

The other witnesses might want to address my follow-up question.

I am trying to understand the proposed legislation before us and all the possibilities. It is possible to create a specialist court, as proposed in the bill. We can decide where that is in the hierarchy, but there could be different levels of representation and rights of audience, and sheriffs appointed by the Lord President would be able to sit as judges in that court. However, it seems to me that there is nothing to say that the pilot would not run in the specialist court as opposed to the High Court. Is that fair to say?

In other words, the specialist court with national jurisdiction, wherever it sits, is not the High Court. It would be possible under the bill to have a sheriff appointed by the Lord President, solicitors or any other representation—there is no ban on solicitors representing accused persons in the specialist court—and a single judge all at the same time. Is that right?