³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

You are right. We have already produced one thematic report, which details 11 or 14 recommendations—I cannot remember exactly how many—that we can take forward right away. Another tranche of recommendations that do not require legislation can also be taken forward right away, and we will continue to do that. Some of the recommendations are for other agencies, such as the police, and they will take time to do what they will do.

Some governance arrangements are already in place before the governance group is established. We have looked at that, and progress is being made already, where possible. Willie Cowan can give more detail about that.

I will be a little cagey on this. When there are proposals to change the courts, the decisions on that rest with the judiciary and not with me. We tend to wait to see how the judiciary is approaching issues such as the establishment of specialist courts before we get too involved. It is now easier for us to talk about the issue because Lady Dorrian has made that recommendation and we are not being seen as trying to determine how the court system should be run. The governance group will consider the issue, starting from next week.

I especially do not want to talk about how we might treat jurors, because that is for the judiciary to talk about. However, your point about trauma-informed approaches is important. The point that I was trying to make earlier was that, in addition to all the different pieces of legislation, I hope that we will achieve a justice system that is trauma informed and victim centred from end to end. There is a danger that those phrases can become buzzwords that people throw around, so the challenge is how we can make that real. We are undertaking training with the NHS to try to ensure that it happens.

We had a good discussion on the issue recently at the victims task force. We want to get to a stage at which that approach applies in all the different elements of the system. I call it a system but, as I know you are aware, there are areas such as the judiciary and the courts that are distinct and independent. In many respects, the police have a role that is independent from ministers. However, we want an end-to-end process that is victim centred, that focuses on people who have suffered crimes and that is trauma informed.

I will give just one example, although it does not relate to the issue that Rona Mackay asked about—I have explained why I do not want to go into too much detail on that. One survivor—the chap was not a victim; he was the father of somebody who was murdered—said that, when he had to go to court and sit a couple of feet away from the family of the person who was accused of murdering his son, that felt off to him in so many ways.

The justice system has been focused on trying to get justice delivered, if you like. The way in which victims are treated and the trauma-informed approach have to feature much more in its thinking. I generally support the idea of people being trauma informed, but it is not for me to say whether jurors should be trained or given background information.

I am afraid I cannot tell you what the deputy chief constable meant. Like you, I think that he was perhaps talking about when we move forward on the gender recognition legislation. That may be the most obvious thing to say on what he meant, but I do not know. The police will be watching this meeting—not in any sinister way—and I am sure that they can provide a response.

I think that the police are aware—as you are hinting—of the complexities of the matter and of the dangers in the situation. The same is true of the Scottish Prison Service. The approach that the police take is a very sensitive one. They are sensitive both to the human rights of the people involved and to the safety of those involved. Your basic point concerns somebody trying to use the system in some way; I think that the police are very well aware of that. They are also aware of the individual rights of people.

In any event, it may be for DCC Graham to come back and clarify exactly what he meant by his comments, rather than it being for me to say.

I want to come back to the member’s comment about the response that he had received from DCC Graham about notification of victims. The DCC said that, although the situation has not yet arisen, the police will have to look at it. That is the right approach, and it is consistent with taking into account the rights of victims and ensuring that public safety and human rights are at the forefront. You are right to say that the police have not encountered this situation yet, but they will have to give some thought to how they will deal with it, and I support the police in doing so.

The matter is central to how the court system is run and, as such, the decision is ultimately for the judiciary. Jamie Greene is right to say that there will be implications of having such courts. I understand that we do not want to have court systems tripping over or cutting across one another. It is not for me to speak for the Lord Justice Clerk, but I think that her intention is that the specialist courts will be able to build up a body of experience. As Pauline McNeill said, there is such experience in the High Court, given that it frequently deals with the same issues. That will also lead to greater efficiency, which might help to deal with the backlog. I hesitate to say much more about how those potential duplications and crossovers might be detrimental. It is for Lady Dorrian and the judiciary to comment on such matters.

However, as he said, Willie Cowan is on the governance group that will consider the issue. I know that this only partially answers the question, but the Government stands ready to help, whether that is through introducing legislation on sentencing powers or, as Jamie Greene said, through providing resources to fund whatever the judiciary believes is needed. I think that it expects to report on the matter next year.

If there is a change, there are likely to be resource implications, and I hope and expect that the Lord Justice Clerk will be well aware of any potential problems with duplication or overlap.

[Inaudible.]—from DCC Malcolm Graham, where I think that he pointed out that there had not been a single case of the type that has been mentioned, despite the fact that, if I have the figure correct, there were 1,129 rape cases in the first six months of this year. That is a horrendous figure that we are trying to deal with through some of the reforms that I have mentioned. In many cases, the police will do the data collection on the issue, although you are right to suggest that the Government will have an interest in and view on that.

It is important that the police take a human rights approach; that the rights of everybody involved are, as DCC Graham said, observed, respected and upheld; and that the safety of everybody is upheld, too. That is the right approach for the police to take, and I am therefore very supportive of DCC Graham’s comments.

I have not seen Mr MacAskill’s views, but I am much more inclined to take the up-to-date position presented by DCC Graham in the previous evidence-taking session.

As you said, we have Lady Dorrian’s recommendation, and the committee has heard from the Lord Advocate. One of her main concerns is that the backlog be impacted in a positive way, which single judge trials might help with. There are other factors, too, such as the specialist nature of the judge’s knowledge.

We want to see what comes out of the governance review group. I cannot give you a definitive answer at the moment, but we are mindful of the fact that various groups and political parties, as well as some members of the committee, have serious concerns about the use of single judge trials, as do the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society and others in the system. They say that they think that there is not widespread support for such a measure. That is probably reflected in the fact that Lady Dorrian’s review group could not come to a consensus on the matter.

The issue will form part of the work of the governance review group. There is no way that it would ever be proceeded with without full parliamentary involvement, to the extent that that is necessary and appropriate. We must wait and see what the governance review group comes up with.

It is a very good question. It may be useful to hear from Willie Cowan on this, too. The governance group will consider the issue. There is a particular issue around the court considering domestic abuse, although rape will be part of what the court will examine. Where does that properly sit? I know that you will be speaking to the Lord Advocate next week and, as you know, she has discussed how we can get the pace to address the backlog. There is a huge issue with the backlog, and part of that is to do with the impact that it is having on victims and witnesses. We want to deal with the backlog, given the preponderance of sexual assault and rape cases in it. That is one of the drivers for the specialist courts.

It is also true, as I am sure you will know, that the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland and the bar association have expressed concerns about some of the proposals. That is more to do with judge-only trials, but it concerns both specialist courts and the proposal for judge-only trials. The latter area, at least, was one where there was no consensus when Lady Dorrian’s group considered the matter.

The governance group will have to give more thought to those aspects. Of course, whatever we choose to do, Parliament will get the chance to have a say. If we decided to bring in specialist courts, we would have to legislate in any event. It might be worth hearing from Willie Cowan on some of the detail.

I do not control the court system—it is the judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that deal with it. However, no matter whether we are talking about the courts, the prisons or the police, I would say from all the evidence that I have seen—and I have looked at this in some detail—that they are very cognisant of the rights and safety of individuals. They are trying extremely hard to ensure that they are upheld, and I support them in that process.