³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I agree.

Good morning, Lord Advocate. You have given a fulsome response on part 4 of the bill, so my question will be brief.

I know that this is primarily a question for the Scottish Government, but I want to know your views on why the proposals have been put to us. I am trying to understand where the link between getting rid of the not proven verdict and changing the size of the jury came from. I am sure that the Government will not call it this, but it is almost some sort of compromise—those are my words, not the words of the committee or the Government. I am trying to understand where that link might have come from, because every witness whom we have asked does not seem to have an answer to that.

Okay. I apologise for asking the question in that manner. I was thinking more about whether you see any benefits from removing the not proven verdict and changing jury sizes. I know that you have spoken clearly about jury sizes, but if the not proven verdict is to be removed, do jury sizes need to change? What I am asking is whether you would rather leave the jury sizes as they are.

I was going to ask about the pilot of juryless trials, but you covered a lot of that in your response to the convener, so I have only one further question.

A couple of weeks ago, we heard evidence that perhaps shocked us, when witnesses discussed juryless trials. Some indicated that they would have preferred that, but others said that they would rather have 12 or 15 people—multiple people—making the decision, rather than one.

Sometimes, when we legislate, or make changes to the justice system, we are doing things that we think will help victims and witnesses. What input should victims and witnesses have to any pilot as we look for the best way forward?

I will tie all my questions together. I do not know whether it would be far too difficult to do—the idea has just come to me between meetings—but should victims, witnesses and complainers have a choice? Juryless trials could be piloted, but people who want a jury could have one. We heard clear evidence from some witnesses who said that they would have wanted a jury and would not have wanted a single-judge trial.

I am asking about victims and witnesses because this is the victims and witnesses bill. A pilot of juryless trials seems like a good idea, but I am trying to take into account the fact that there might be different views on that.

I am not thinking about a choice further down the line; I am thinking about the pilot. That pilot would involve real victims and witnesses and real accused people, so we must be careful about seeing it just as a pilot. Given that this is the victims and witnesses bill, is there scope for saying to people who are part of the pilot that they could still choose to have a jury trial?

Thank you. As I said, I had more questions on that subject, but I think that you have covered them.

Good morning to the panel. A lot of the issues that I was going to ask about have been covered, and the responses have been full, which I really appreciate. However, there is a particular question that I want to ask, which is about this committee and our scrutiny.

Your opening speeches were really helpful. All of you thanked us for having you back again and for being able to come and speak to us again. You are all familiar faces to the committee, and it is great to see you again. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee in the previous session, I know you from then. You are used to coming to committees.

How do you think the Government responds to the committee? Obviously, people will watch such sessions and read our reports. Do you think that your input into the committee and the reports that we put forward have any impact on the human rights budgeting process? Do you see a link between what we say in our committee reports, based on your evidence, and actions?

Following on from what Sharon Dowey said, I have a question for Professor Chalmers. Given your academic expertise, could you tell me how a pilot would look at this issue? How should the pilot be assessed and where should the voices of victims and witnesses be heard in the assessment of the pilot? The reason why I ask is that, when we heard from victims last week, a number of them, quite surprisingly—to me, anyway; I do not know about other committee members—said that they were not in favour of juryless trials, because they felt that it was better that a larger number of people were making the decision.

Good morning to the witnesses who are online and to you, Professor Thomas. I was going to ask some questions in a very similar area to those asked by Sharon Dowey. With the convener’s permission, I will still take the opportunity.

I have what I suppose is a simple question for our online guests on judge-only trials. In your academic opinion, do you think that having a single judge to determine such cases, as opposed to a jury, is better?

I have a final question for Professor Thomas. First, Professor Thomas, thank you very much for coming up to Scotland, and I am sorry that you feel that your research is coming under so much scrutiny. We are delighted to have you here—the fact that we have invited you indicates that we want to hear more about your research. It is just a sort of scrutiny process, so apologies if it sometimes comes across as a bit harsh. We are making really big decisions here, so we want to hear about your research.

I want to ask you the opposite end of the question that I just asked. I know that your research was in England and Wales. Rather than tell me what the positives would be of having a single judge, can you tell me what you found were the positives, if any, of having a jury make those decisions?