Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to the proposed sex crimes court, the Faculty of Advocates has told us that

“there is no single feature of the proposed court which could not be delivered rapidly”,

and the Law Society of Scotland has said that the establishment of a specialist division in the existing courts would be—I am paraphrasing—quicker, cheaper and as effective as the proposed new court. When I put that to Lady Dorrian a couple of weeks ago, she said that we need to

“seize the opportunity to create the culture change from the ground up”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 January 2024; c 22.]

She said that if we fail to do so, that will result in us having the same conversations in 40 years’ time. I do not want to put any of you in the position of murmuring a judge, but are you persuaded by the Lord Justice Clerk’s argument on that?

Earlier, we heard from the academics that there is a significant lack of research in Scotland on a lot of these matters. Professor Cheryl Thomas’s view is that the juryless rape trials would therefore be, at best, premature. Those who support the measures, including Lady Dorrian, say that the pilot will allow for the collection of evidence. The academic in turn responds and asks how, without any existing evidence or research, we can measure what we are trying to measure with the new body of evidence that will be yielded from the pilot.

Do you think that we should get more evidence? I know that John Swinney said earlier that it is not unusual to hear a call for more evidence, but it seems particularly important in this case, given the radical changes that are being proposed and the significant lack of evidence that exists. Do you think that much more evidence should be collected before we embark on this?

In respect of whether your research shows evidence of rape myths among jurors, does it do that?

I thank the witnesses for coming to the committee. The submission from Professors Chalmers, Leverick and Munro refers to your research, Professor Thomas, from 2020, saying that it is sometimes cited as evidence

“that jurors do not believe rape myths”,

but that that interpretation is untrue and that the research does not actually demonstrate that. They point to alternative New Zealand research from 2022, which they say “found considerable evidence” of rape myths among jurors. Will you clarify what your research actually found, and do you agree with Professors Chalmers, Leverick and Munro’s assessment of it?

Will the faculty boycott it?

Do you mean that there would be a disciplinary consequence, potentially?

Thank you. Last week, we heard from rape victims who waived their anonymity and who had mostly had a pretty terrible experience of the courts and the wider justice system. I asked them if they backed the proposed juryless rape trials, and their answers were quite surprising. One of them, Anisha Yaseen, said:

“I do not think that the proposal is a good idea. That would definitely have put me off. Had that been a thing before I reported what happened, I do not think I would have reported it.”

Sarah Ashby said:

“Having a single judge is not, in my opinion, the way to go.”

A third response, from Hannah Stakes, was a bit more nuanced. She said:

“There is something to be done on that, but I am concerned that, if a case was heard by a single judge and they were biased, there might be more reason to worry about a mistrial.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 30.]

Their position is at odds with that of Rape Crisis Scotland. Sometimes, we fall into the trap of believing that all victims speak as one and that all experiences are universal. Are you surprised by the strong views that were expressed last week by those victims? Have you had any indication from behind-the-scenes discussions and lobbying about whether there is any movement from the Scottish Government on that particular issue?

Good afternoon. The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association told us that its members will boycott any juryless rape trials, which it says would increase the risk of

“a miscarriage of justice, deliver no discernible benefits ... and undermine the public’s confidence in our criminal justice system.”

Incidentally, it is worth putting on record that members did not make any decision not to have witnesses from the SSBA here, and I am confident that we will continue to welcome its engagement.

I put the risk of a boycott to Lady Dorrian, who responded by saying that that was more an issue for us to deal with and not so much for her. However, I expect that it will very much become an issue for the senior judiciary, if they end up sitting in a court with no jurors and no defence lawyers. My questions are quite practical. Is a boycott the set position of the profession? Is that position universally held? What engagement has there been with the justice secretary or the Scottish Government more generally on that?

I am sorry to interrupt. According to the SSBA, its members have pretty much universally said no. However, as your membership incorporates all of its members, there may be solicitors who may indeed take part.