The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of MSPs and committees will automatically update to show only the MSPs and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of MSPs and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of MSPs and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1673 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
That is the point. Why not?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
The faculty’s written submission says that the “system ... ostensibly works”, yet, last week, the head of Rape Crisis Scotland told us that it is
“obvious to anyone—guilty men are regularly walking free”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 6 December 2023; c 9.]
Do you think that rapists are walking free, or is she wrong? That is for Ronnie Renucci.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
In its submission, the Crown Office points to the Scottish jury manual, which Mr Murray referred to earlier. It provides guidance to judges on directing juries. It says that, if a juror is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt,
“your duty is to convict”.
Otherwise, they would need to deliver a verdict of not guilty or not proven. The Crown is saying that, if the not proven verdict is scrapped, it is not clear why a juror who was not convinced of guilt would be considered more likely to return a guilty verdict. That appears to be at odds with your collective position: that jurors might be forced to return a verdict that they are not comfortable with or of which they are not convinced. Can you, perhaps, explain that anomaly or reasoning? That question is for Mr Renucci or anyone who might care to take it.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
Two weeks ago, Professor Fiona Leverick and Eamon Keane told us, to my surprise, that they opposed the eight out of 12 proposition. They believed we should have what is typical of international jurisdictions: either unanimity or 10 or 11 out of 12. I was surprised by their position. Given that their position is consistent with that of the legal profession, do you think that the Scottish Government should perhaps rethink the eight out of 12?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
Thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
Is it not the case, though, that, as things stand, we cannot find out the breakdown of the jury numbers?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
I find it extraordinary that we appear to be flying blind. This is critical, and we do not have that basic data.
The bill’s policy memorandum says:
“jurors may be more likely to convict”
with the two-verdict system. The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association says that removing the not proven verdict would “undoubtedly”—that is the word used—result in more convictions. However, the Crown Office submission says that the 2019 jury research suggests that the opposite would happen and that jurors would be potentially less likely to convict. I wonder whether the bill is progressing on the false assumption that removing the not proven verdict will lead to an increased rate of conviction when, in fact, it is the opposite. Do you have any views on that?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
We are being asked to be mind readers of juries when, in fact, there is no real reason why academia and the legal profession could not have conducted some meaningful research, or so I believe.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
Russell Findlay
No. Okay—thank you.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 6 December 2023
Russell Findlay
So, who has the responsibility to fix it?