Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 14 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1227 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I would welcome further discussion on that. I know that Katy Clark has a supplementary question.

This is an important issue. It is a significant proposal. If the issue is not resolved, I would have difficulty in supporting the provisions in the bill, to be perfectly truthful with you.

I have mentioned this issue previously and I apologise for mentioning it again, but when we increased the sheriff court’s sentencing powers in 2004, the Legal Aid Board eventually refused to sanction advocates for cases that previously would have been heard in a higher court. Ask any of the profession. The problem is that, unless the Legal Aid Board gives you assurances, accused persons who would otherwise have been properly represented by senior counsel or junior counsel will, by your admission, no longer be automatically entitled to that representation. If you leave it to the Legal Aid Board, the same thing will happen that happened in 2004—serious cases that are indicted in the sheriff court will no longer attract a higher level of representation.

We will be throwing the baby out with the bath water if we do not close the door on that. The cabinet secretary opened by saying that she does not want the sexual offences court to be seen as a lower court, but it will be if we do not resolve these issues. I would be happy if—

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I want to examine how the single-judge trial would operate. You have had questions from the convener and Russell Findlay about how the pilot will be assessed. Will you publish what you are looking for? There is some confusion. At least three of our witnesses, including Professor James Chalmers, seem to think that you will measure conviction rates. It is not just the Scottish Criminal Bar Association that thinks that that will be one of the assessment criteria, but you have clearly said that it will not.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I agree.

Lastly, I am trying to piece together the different legal forms, because they connect quite a bit. I take it that, if you were to set up a specialist court, it would be possible that a single judge would sit alone in a specialist court without a jury and with two verdicts.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I see. You would evaluate conviction rates, in that case.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Does that mean that the answer to my question is that Scotland would still be an outlier but you are comfortable with that because we have other measures that other jurisdictions do not have? Do those amount to corroboration?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

No, but you can understand why I am asking the question if the argument for removing the not proven verdict is that Scotland is an outlier—we would still be an outlier if it was removed. I do not particularly have a problem with that, because I think that some features of our system are good. I just wanted to understand that.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Yes, I am not arguing with that point.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Good morning to you and your team, cabinet secretary. You are right to say that all the political parties had a manifesto commitment to abolish the not proven verdict. I did not take a view on Michael McMahon’s bill, but I did not support it. We might have a consensus on abolishing the not proven verdict, but the problem, as you have heard in the lines of questioning, is how we get a consensus on the formulation of the change in the size and majority of the jury.

You said that Scotland is an outlier. However, with the proposals, Scotland would still be an outlier, because no other jurisdiction has the majority that you propose. If I have understood your position, you are saying that we do not want to be an outlier but we will still be an outlier under the proposals. Is the reason for that position the corroboration that we have in Scots law? Is that why you are comfortable with still being an outlier in the international arena?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

So, we will always be an outlier—is that what you mean? We will always be different.