Seòmar agus comataidhean

We do not even have the costs or a correct financial memorandum. The initial cost for the set-up of the court was £1.4 million, and there are recurring costs. We have already agreed to the victims commissioner, but it was going to cost £640,000 to implement that and the recurring costs would be around £615,000. For the court, there is a one-off cost of £2 million and recurring costs of around £1 million. If that is, indeed, new money coming into the system rather than being taken off victims charities, which has been raised as a concern, how many bairns’ houses would we be able to buy with £2 million? The recurring costs of £1 million would keep them going. Taking that measure would make a huge difference to victims of sexual offences. Given the recent statistics on sexual offences against under-16s, that would be a better use of our money, because it would provide support and trauma-informed practice in dealing with youngsters, which would help them to provide solid evidence to get those who are guilty of those horrible crimes convicted and put in jail.

That, in my opinion, would be a better use of money, and I have real concerns about the sexual offences court. It sounds great, but how will it work in reality, and how will it be put into practice for solicitors, lawyers and everyone else who works in the system? Concerns have been raised about the practicalities of defence solicitors being available to meet the national jurisdiction of the sexual offences court. Simon Brown of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association pointed out that fewer than 500 defence solicitors are working in Scotland and called it “a dying profession”. It seems to me highly unlikely that enabling the courts to sit at 38 locations across Scotland could be made to work in practice when defence solicitors already have demanding workloads and would face increased travel and other expenses if they were to attend the new court.

The same would apply to sheriff court staff, who would likely be transferred or redeployed to the new court. The costs associated with redeploying 25 clerks, as well as other court staff, to support the sexual offences court is estimated at £235,000, and the cost of regrading sheriff court clerks to work in High Court procedure for the new court is expected to be around £465,000. I do not believe that those costs are justifiable when it is perfectly possible to achieve the same aims by integrating trauma-informed practice in the existing court structure and creating a new division in our existing courts.

As will be discussed in more detail later, survivors of sexual crime have made it clear to the committee that they have real concerns about the perceived downgrading of rape trials if they are moved from the High Court to a new sexual offences court. Rape survivor Ellie Wilson said:

“Rape is one of the most serious crimes in Scots law; such cases are only ever heard in the High Court. That solemnity is sacred, and it is important that we maintain it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 4.]

Rape survivor Sarah Ashby similarly told us:

“I would not like for such cases to be dismissed or for us to be made to feel that they are any less significant than they are. When you get the information through that the trial is going to the High Court, there is an element of realising how important that is.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 43.]

If that is how survivors feel, we should listen to them.

That is also the position of the Faculty of Advocates and of experienced lawyers such as Tony Lenehan KC. We have a hierarchical court system for very important reasons, and I am greatly concerned that creating a crossover between two distinct levels in that system might have unintended consequences that will cause more harm than good.

It is also unclear how the divisions between High Court and sheriff court cases will operate in the new court. The bill provides for the merging of High Court and sheriff court cases, to be heard by judges and sheriffs collectively as judges of the sexual offences court. Concern was raised by the Law Society of Scotland, which highlighted the impact that that could have on the sentencing process by potentially increasing the sentencing powers of sheriffs sitting in the new court.

My concern is that the creation of a new sexual offences court sounds good on paper but would do little in practice to address the real issues in our court system or to deliver the changes needed to help victims, particularly regarding the delivery of improved trauma-informed practice. That is despite survivors such as Anisha Yaseen telling us:

“It does not matter how much legislation you throw at this, because the issue is the culture. Nothing will change—no matter how many things you put into place—without a change in culture.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 41.]

I agree with that, which is why I do not support the creation of the new court and will move the amendments in Russell Findlay’s name.

Good morning. My amendment 92 would require a jury to deliver a unanimous guilty conviction or, where that threshold was not met, allow a supermajority of 10 out of 12 jurors. That is the approach that is taken in England and Wales, and it has been tried and tested in jurisdictions around the world. In comparison, the Scottish Government proposes that we require a two-thirds majority with a jury of 15, which would make Scotland an outlier as the only jurisdiction in the world to follow that approach.

Lord Renucci, a former vice-dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a senator of the College of Justice, said:

“If we are going to change the numbers, we should be striving for unanimity. In all jurisdictions that operate a jury system of 12, either unanimity or a majority of 10 to two is required. No system falls below 10 to two.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 7-8.]

My amendment is in line with that and is modelled on the amendment on jury verdicts that the Law Society of Scotland published in December. Time and time again, the committee has heard legal professionals express support for unanimity and a 10 out of 12 supermajority verdict. That proposal has been endorsed by the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association and the Edinburgh Bar Association. The Law Society wrote to the committee to support the amendment and reminded us that, although the Government’s proposal follows the position of the senators of the College of Justice, who have indicated support for a 15-person jury with a two-thirds majority, that was with the safeguard of a two-verdict system in which the rules on corroboration remained in place.

The Lord Advocate’s letter last week denied that this is the case, but the Law Society has said that the corroboration requirement was radically changed by the Lord Advocate’s reference decision in November. That is concerning and should lead us to question whether the Government’s proposal now comes with the safeguards that are required to meet the needs of our criminal justice system.

As we all know, there are four cornerstones of Scotland’s criminal justice system: the not proven verdict, the jury size of 15, the eight out of 15 majority and the corroboration rule. Three of those four cornerstones are impacted by the bill and the other has been significantly changed. I have deep concerns about whether those changes are based on hard evidence. We must ensure that any changes are made with the care and due diligence that we owe to everyone who is involved with and affected by the criminal justice system.

The Scottish Government has gone back and forth on its position on jury size and majority. First, it wanted a simple majority with 12 jurors. Then it changed that to a two-thirds majority with 12 jurors. It has now changed its mind again and wants a two-thirds majority with 15 jurors.

I would say that, at the moment, none of us can put forward a proposal that is completely based on concrete evidence, because of the lack of evidence that we had at committee. Pauline McNeill said as much in her contribution—we needed a lot more evidence on this. We could have done with seeing the research before we lodged our amendments, but we do not have it. I will come on to this, but I do not think that the mock juries gave us the research that we needed either.

Actually, I am going to come on to it now. I am deeply concerned that no real research is available to us on jury deliberations in Scotland. We have no idea how juries reach their decisions or what the split is between those who believe the accused is guilty or not guilty. Alisdair Macleod, from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, made the point that

“It might well be that every jury in the land comes back with a unanimous 15 to nil verdict or a 14 to one majority verdict. There is no way of knowing how many cases are decided on an eight to seven verdict”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 46.]

Moreover, Lord Renucci made the point, which I agree with, that

“we should not change our whole legal system based on research with mock juries, which, in no way, mirrored what happens in courts.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 13 December 2023; c 9.]

He said that the mock trial in the Scottish jury research lasted one hour, but he had never in his career experienced a rape trial that had lasted less than a day. That is not the way to build an evidence base for reform of the system.

It was still not a live setting.

My amendment 63A would have been supplementary to Katy Clark’s amendment 63, which would have allowed for research into jury deliberations. My amendment would have prevented jury deliberations from being compromised by ensuring that that research could be conducted only after the jury had delivered its verdict. However, given that, as Katy Clark said, those amendments were lodged in advance and the Government has now lodged different amendments, I will not move my amendment, either.

Amendment 26 was not agreed to. The cabinet secretary said that complainers want a better experience of the court system. I still think that small practical changes would make a huge difference. I also still have concerns about the practicalities for the legal profession of using up to 38 courts and about the costs, the implementation and whether this will make a difference. However, I will not move the other amendments.

Amendments 258 and 259 seek to safeguard victims by ensuring that, when the Parole Board decides to release a discretionary life prisoner and there is a victim of their crimes, the board must provide a summary explaining why it has chosen to release them. That summary would then have to be provided to the victim, or to a family member if the victim is deceased.

Those who are given life sentences will have committed very serious crimes, and we must ensure that, when they are released, victims or their families are notified and given a full account of the reasons behind their release. Victims deserve transparency, but unfortunately, as we have seen in recent years, not all victims get informed when their offender is released from prison. The amendments will safeguard victims and ensure that they and their families have transparency when it comes to the release of dangerous offenders.

I lodged the amendments to ensure more transparency for victims and their families when people are released from prison. As Jamie Greene has said, there can be a cost implication in producing reports. As the cabinet secretary said in relation to the earlier amendments lodged by Jamie Greene, there are times when we do not need primary legislation to do something; it could be done by a change in procedure or policy. If we do not need legislation, I am happy for more of that information to be given to victims on a person’s release. It would be interesting to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on whether we need legislation to get more information out to victims, or whether that is something that we can work on and bring back at stage 3.

As Pauline McNeill mentioned earlier, we did no work with the Parole Board in the course of our scrutiny of the bill. This is the avenue that my colleague has managed to find to bring in all the amendments on the Parole Board. It is not something that we looked at in great detail, although maybe we should have done.

I note the cabinet secretary’s comment that the proposal does not require primary legislation, and that the consultation will commence in August, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendments 258 and 259 not moved.

Amendment 260 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Amendments 261 and 262 not moved.

Section 30—Vulnerable witnesses

I agree that yearly reporting might be a bit onerous on the system if it is not going to have any real impact, but I would ask that the matter is kept high on the cabinet secretary’s agenda so that, when she is talking to various officials in the justice system, she can make sure that it is high on the list of things for which solutions need to be found. I will not press amendment 91.

Amendment 91, by agreement, withdrawn.