³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have some questions that I want to ask, but they are not on support for victims.

I find it fascinating that, where the approach in question was trialled, the conviction rate for rape was twice the national average.

As my other question is about advice to juries, I will park it and let other members come in.

It is clear to us from speaking to people that, for many victims of such crimes, the current system is not necessarily fit for purpose. That is the premise of our discussion. I do not think that these are isolated cases. I have spoken to jury members who have been told different things by judges, and there is clearly an issue. For example, there is huge confusion about what the not proven verdict means and what happens as a result of it. That sparks the question about Moorov and different decision makers in different bits of a case, for example. There is clearly work to be done there, but we can take that up with the cabinet secretary and the Lord Advocate, so I will not press the matter any further now.

The specific scenario that I was thinking about is one in which a recording of the accuser being fully cross-examined by the defence lawyer is played back during the live trial, and the jury—whether it is in the building or not—watches that evidence. Does that happen at the moment?

Good morning. Before I move on to my pre-planned questions, I want to pick up on some aspects of the discussion that we have had. What has struck me, over the past few months, is that part of the problem is the number of justice partners. I can see why a victim of crime or someone going through a criminal procedure might really struggle to work out who is responsible for what, who to complain to if there is an issue and, if those complaints are interlinked, which body has overall responsibility for dealing with them. It strikes me that there is no such body, and that is part of the problem.

If someone has a complaint against a sheriff, a JP or a judge, there is a specific Government process to go through. If the complaint is against a deputy, it goes to the Crown Office, and, if it is against a defence solicitor or a QC, they have their own regulatory environment through the Law Society of Scotland or the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. If the complaint is about the work that you do, I presume that it comes to you in the first instance, and you are governed by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The process is hard enough for me to get my head around, never mind someone who has been the victim of a traumatic crime. Therefore, can you see why so many people feed back to the committee and Parliament that they find the process extremely confusing, complex and retraumatising?

I might come back in later with some supplementary questions on other issues, but I have one more question at the moment.

Obviously, the elephant in the room is the backlog of cases that we are dealing with. From evidence that we have taken from victims of crime, we know about the inevitable stress and trauma that that creates. It is not simply a question of the timescale; it is about the fact that many of those cases have been cancelled or rescheduled many times—sometimes dozens of times. A number of victims, particularly survivors of crimes of sexual assault and abuse and gender-based violence, have called for statutory maximum timescales for trials of that nature.

We are very aware of the backlog, and I appreciate that you are only one cog in the machine, but what can you do in that regard? Given that we are coming up to negotiations around the budget, what would you ask the Government to do to facilitate more trials more quickly, while, at the same time, not weakening the sanctity and effectiveness of those trials? Both parties have an absolute right to a fair trial. In an ideal world, what would happen in order for you to process those cases more quickly?

My questions will follow on nicely from yours, convener.

I think that it is fair to say that there is a spectrum of views on the subject of video links and technology. Some people would prefer an environment in which the accuser or victim gives a pre-recorded statement that is played in a court in which not everyone is present—the use of remote juries in different buildings has been trialled in that regard. On the other hand, there are people who want everyone to be in the court—the accused, the accuser, the jury, the judge, the witnesses and everyone else. Between those two views there is wide spectrum of opinion. Obviously, we are trying to modernise how we do things—the pandemic is forcing us to do that, in any case, but it is also the right thing to do.

I want to ask about the issue of pre-recorded cross-examination, which we have not discussed yet. You will be aware that trials of that approach have taken place in London and elsewhere in England—I know that Durham Crown Court is running one. Does that happen in Scotland? If not, why not? Are there any plans to run such trials here?

Absolutely. I do not disagree that it is a common theme. The problem is that much of that work is currently taken up by the third sector and, in some cases, by volunteers. It is not formalised in any sense. People have access to Victim Support Scotland or to victim information and advice, which is the Crown Office’s process. However, in many cases, people are directed to charities such as Rape Crisis Scotland or Scottish Women’s Aid, or to their ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ or MPs if they are really stuck, as we can write letters to people and generally get answers back.

I think that the lack of centralised support to hold someone’s hand through the process has led to accusations that the system is geared and weighted towards the accused. They have a single point of contact—their lawyer—who will hold their hand and educate them as they go through the process, whereas the victims often feel that they are passed from pillar to post.

With regard to your bit of the process, you manage the estate, but you have little control over the physicality of the estate. Many people have said to us that the estate creates difficulties—it is not a pleasant place to be, and victims often come face to face with the people who have attacked or abused them. In addition, the physical layout of the buildings, many of which are antiquated, is not conducive to a trauma-informed experience. What will you do to improve that?

Five years is a long time to wait for a case to come to trial, whether you are the accused or the victim. It is horrendous.

I will start by asking you to clarify something that you said in your opening statement about the overall budget, because it puts the justice budget into context. I understand that the block grant for 2022-23 will rise from £36.7 billion to £40.6 billion—a £3.9 billion uplift—which is derived from £3.4 billion in resource funding and £400 million in capital funding. That seems to contradict your opening statement. Could you clarify that?