Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to pick up on points that have already been made. Taking on board everything that has been said about the proposal potentially downgrading offences and the comments about it being considered as an inferior court, and on the presumption that it would be part of the High Court, I want to know whether, if the system was one of a jury-free specialist court with a single judge or single judge with wing members, that would have an impact on how cases were marked and on whether they would be taken to court in the first instance. That is probably a question for the police and prosecution service.

We have already heard that there are problems in resourcing the taking of evidence on commission. Is that an issue? If changes were made so that there was more availability to take evidence on commission and the system had a single judge or a single judge with wing members, and if we put aside corroboration and treat it as a completely separate—although obviously very important—issue, would more cases come to court and, therefore, could more rape and attempted rape convictions be secured? That question is for Moira Price from the prosecution service; if Detective Chief Superintendent Faulds wants to come in, that would also be helpful.

Dr Marsha Scott, from your organisation’s experience, why do victims decide not to go down the path of taking issues to the police? You must have extensive experience of that.

As you know, responsibility for compensating victims of crime and the criminal injuries compensation scheme was devolved to the Scottish Parliament a number of years ago, but the Scottish Government has continued with the Westminster scheme. Kate Wallace, what have been your experiences of it? How well does it work for victims?

That was very helpful. I know that we are short of time, so if you want to share anything else in writing with the committee, it will be really appreciated.

We will be asking detailed questions about Lady Dorrian’s report and the idea of specialist domestic abuse courts later.

Marsha Scott said that she thought that Scotland was at the cutting edge. Do any of the witnesses have knowledge of other jurisdictions, either from their own practical experience or through academic research? The academics may be able to help us here. Scotland has an adversarial system, and some of the reforms that are being suggested might significantly improve conviction rates. It is clear that the system is not working at the moment. Other jurisdictions, such as France, have a more inquisitorial system that is all about finding out the truth.

Without getting into the issues of single judges or corroboration, which we will pick up when we discuss Lady Dorrian’s recommendations, do any of the witnesses have knowledge of other jurisdictions where they do things that we should learn from? It may be that some of the basic principles of how we do things in Scotland are not right for some types of cases. Are there any areas that we should be looking at but that are not covered in Lady Dorrian’s report? South Africa has specialist domestic abuse courts. Are we going down the right path?

Will Sandy Brindley come in on that? Presumably, you speak with many victims of rape who decide not to go to the police.

Does Kate Wallace want to add anything to that?

I ask Ken Dalling whether he agrees that the virtual approach should be taken by agreement. There will be police witnesses where the evidence is relatively uncontroversial, and it could be agreed but, with other key witnesses where, as Tony Lenehan said, the evidence is critical and controversial, would it be right for that evidence to be taken remotely if the accused and their representatives did not agree? Is there a need for agreement on that, to give the right to a fair trial?

I have one final question, which is for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Last year, there was a doubling of fire fatalities—

I want to pick up on some of the points that were raised earlier about the emergency Covid regulations. In the programme for government, it is clear that we should expect legislation on custody and bail, and legislation to make some of the emergency Covid practices permanent. Pauline McNeill has already raised the issue of time limits, and we have heard powerful evidence about the experiences of witnesses. There has been success with using electronic documents and taking more evidence on commission, and it is suggested that that should be extended perhaps to have witness evidence taken remotely.

In Scotland, we have an adversarial rather than an inquisitorial system. Whether that is right or wrong, it is the system that we have. On the detail of what would in your opinion be acceptable and what would not be, to what extent do you think that those kinds of methods, particularly the hybrid model, should be used by the agreement of both parties? What detail should be in the legislation that you think it would be reasonable for this place to pass? What would that look like? Could you give us a bit more detail on that, because it is going to be a big issue?

Perhaps Tony Lenehan and Ken Dalling could come in on those questions. I am looking for the detail of what you think would work.