���˿���

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?

My questions are also around the pilot of juryless trials. I know that the issue has been widely covered, but I want to ask your opinions on what the pilot should look at and assess. We heard in the previous evidence session that such a pilot would be further down the line and that its remit and considerations would need to be given more thought. I know that that is mostly for Government and politicians to look at, but given your expertise in the area, have you thought about what sort of parameters the pilot should look at in answering whether it is making the system better for victims and witnesses and for the accused?

I come back to a point that Russell Findlay made to you earlier, and which I made in the previous session. It is that there was an element of surprise at some of the survivors’ evidence last week on the proposal to have a single judge. The witnesses were more reluctant to approve of that proposal than I had perhaps anticipated. Therefore, I will put to you the question that I put to the academics earlier: what role should be given to victims and witnesses in the assessment of the pilot?

I know that we are coming to the end of our evidence session, so I do not need everybody to answer if they do not want to. I am happy to take nods from anyone who wants to come in.

Thank you. That point was very powerfully made.

Do you think that that could be brought out through the trauma-informed practice that is embedded in the legislation?

Thank you for the evidence that you have given so far. I know that we are tight for time—and it might well be hard to answer this question in the time that we have—but I have asked the convener for permission to ask about part 4 of the bill. Only Sandy Brindley has had the opportunity to come in and speak to us in person about it, although everyone has had the opportunity to contribute a submission. I therefore want to ask about this part of the bill—Sandy, you can come back on this, if you wish—but I must ask the panel to be as brief as possible, even though I know that that might be difficult.

We have been asked about the not proven verdict, and I am pretty sure that I speak for most people when I say that we accept the reasons why it should not be there and that it seems a bit of an anomaly in the system. However, it feels that, with this bill, we are being asked to remove not proven at the same time as we are being asked to change the size of juries with regard to the delivery of verdicts. I think that I and others are struggling with that balance, because none of us wants to take away not proven only to make the situation worse. I do not know whether that will happen—I do not know what the research says about that—but I want to ask for the panel’s views on the issue.

Given that you have already contributed on this matter, Sandy, I will start with the others on the panel, but I will give you an opportunity to come in, too. Emma, do you want to speak to this issue? I should have said that panel members can respond only if they want to.

Thank you very much for your evidence so far, which has been powerful. I cannot overstate how helpful it will be to the committee.

Our conversation has moved on a wee bit since then, but my question goes back to what Hannah Stakes said about there being a screen that you did not want. I found that very interesting. As Pauline McNeill and Rona Mackay will remember from the previous parliamentary session, when the Justice Committee pushed for stuff such as the introduction of screens, we heard that even when the justice system gets things “right”, it is still not being flexible. It is almost as if, when the authorities are doing the right thing, they are forcing that on to you, because that is what Parliament and other people want. I told the convener that I would keep my questions brief, so I will ask them now. Is there an issue about flexibility in the justice system, even when it is perceived to be taking the better approach? How could we change that through the bill?

Thanks very much for that. That was very powerful.

Sorry—I think I made the mistake of muting myself between questions. I did not realise that you now cannot unmute yourself—the system has totally changed.

Thank you for that answer, Jan. Let us move on to talk about your ambitions. I note that the second Scottish national action plan for human rights, which was published last year and runs to 2030, sets out 54 actions across eight priority areas. I will not go into what those are, but a couple of examples are in our papers, including the criminal justice system and the school education system. Based on what you said in response to the previous question and what you have said throughout the meeting, how realistic are the actions and how do you plan to measure them?

Good morning to the panel members. Thank you for your evidence so far. I have a couple of questions that broadly follow on from Paul O’Kane’s line of questioning. You are funded by the SPCB, and we know that the 2022-23 budget cut about 22 per cent from your budget of the previous year. Have you had any discussions or received any indications about why that cut was made? In addition to what you have already said, what has been the impact on your operational planning?

My question is for Teresa Medhurst and relates to the briefing that Scottish Trans sent to committee members and, I am sure, other members. Scottish Trans is generally supportive of the policy, but it feels that, in one area, the policy will not achieve its aims, and that is in relation to non-binary people. The briefing says:

“This will result in some non-binary people being held in either the male or female estate when this is clearly inappropriate to their particular personal circumstances. We are concerned that SPS have not properly understood the range of ways in which non-binary people may transition.”

What are your views on what Scottish Trans has said? That is the only area that it has highlighted.