Seòmar agus comataidhean

My primary concern—as you might have read—about the setting up of a specialist court is that I do not believe that the Government can fix the problem of rights of audience, which it accepts is a problem. I put that specific question to the Government at stage 1, with regard to how it would ensure that the representation that currently exists in the High Court and the sheriff court would remain as is. The Government said that it would lodge an amendment to address that, but I do not see how it can be done. I seek your view on that.

When we changed the sentencing powers of the sheriff court from three years to five years, a promise was given that it would still attract counsel for those cases that would previously not have been heard in the sheriff court. Obviously, if cases are heard in the High Court, they automatically attract counsel.

That is where I think the flaw is with regard to rights of audience. If we set up a specialist court as part of the High Court, it is quite clear that the rights of audience remain the same. If we set up a specialist court of the sheriff court, the rights of audience remain the same. I would like you to answer that point.

I will conclude with this. I recently learned of a case that was, I was told, indicted as assault with injury to life, and it went to the sheriff court. As you will know, if it had been indicted to the High Court, the representation would have been different—the practitioner’s view was that it was an attempted murder and not an assault with injury. The Crown is deciding how it is indicting these cases, and where cases do not go to the High Court, they do not get the representation that the system intended.

I have serious concerns. Do you have those concerns, and do you think that the issue can be fixed? That is the fundamental question. Is there a way of ensuring that those cases that would be likely to attract more than a five-year sentence would still attract representation by counsel, or not?

I will do my best, convener.

We will have to vote on this pretty soon. What I am trying to understand from both organisations is what you would like us to argue for in relation to the jury size. Give us some guidance on that. That is what I am trying to get to, because if we do not want to be an outlier, we either go with the English position or we do something that is completely unique to Scotland, which is what we have.

Do I conclude that you would prefer the bill not to go through? I am just surmising. There has obviously been a lot of discussion behind the scenes. That has concluded with the Government changing its position to a jury majority of 10 to five, which is what the senators had asked for; it is not what the committee had concluded. I am just trying to understand where you would like the committee to be at stage 2. If you cannot change the Government’s position, is that fatal enough for us to vote against the bill?

I am not meaning that. It is about the jury numbers. It has been suggested that, if we go for a majority of 10 out of 15, we would be an outlier. However, we were already an outlier under the original proposals in the bill. My question is whether we should accept that we are going to be an outlier or whether we try to bring ourselves into line—I do not like using the term “into line”, but you know what I mean. Should we mimic another jurisdiction, so that we are not an outlier? That is what I am trying to get at. Does that make sense?

But you do not think that it—

Is it also fair to say that there has already been quite a bit of change, even as we have been discussing the bill? We have heard about the change to corroboration, for example.

In my experience of the justice system, change often happens through decisions that are made in court. For example, the supreme court is currently looking at section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Whether change should happen in the courts or in Parliament is perhaps a moot point, but it does happen in the courts.

Is it fair to say that there has already been quite a bit of change? I would include in that the fact that the Lord Advocate herself, and some of the victims in their testimonies in evidence to us, have said that they see a bit of a change in the Crown’s approach to involving victims a bit more in their cases.

I suppose that my question is a yes-or-no one. Do you agree that you can get quite a bit of change without legislating for it? That is really what you have been saying, I suppose.

My question is, how do you resolve the situation if you are worried that Scotland would be an outlier? Do we just be the outlier and adjust our system, bearing in mind that removing the not proven verdict would apply not just to sexual offences cases, but to all cases that go before the court? Surely England must have some equivalent to corroboration.

Thank you—that is helpful.

Is that for sexual offences cases?

For all offences?