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

Well, let me help you then. We have established that it will not be the High Court. It will be a national court with wider sentencing powers, but in the hierarchy of the court system, it will not be as high as the High Court—is that right? It cannot be.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is because that confuses people. You previously said that you are not trying to alter the rate of conviction but that you are trying to change experiences. That is what I had always understood. Since we do not have any criteria—am I correct in saying that, or could you republish them?—I do not know what the criteria for assessing the single-judge pilot is.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I was trying to establish whether the committee is aware of that research. I do not know that we are. You said that that research says that the removal of the not proven verdict would increase convictions, which is at odds with what the Lord Advocate said last week. John Swinney, in his line of questioning, expressed concerns about the Lord Advocate saying that she thought that it would result in a lower conviction rate. Your research shows otherwise. The problem that I have is that I would like to have put that research to other witnesses. Did we miss that?

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

So, representing those accused persons is a development opportunity that you give solicitors. I think that we need clarity. You can understand my concern.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Sure.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

But there is confusion around that. Will you publish—

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

That is where the confusion comes from.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

It would be useful to summarise that for the committee, Heather.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

I would be grateful for that, because the issue is giving me cause for concern. I am happy to leave it there.

Criminal Justice Committee

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

Meeting date: 7 February 2024

Pauline McNeill

Thank you.

Lastly, I go back to Russell Findlay’s question on a point that the Lord Advocate raised with the committee. In cases in which there was a seven-to-five majority, there would be no conviction. That is what you are legislating for. On the question of whether the Crown should have the right to a retrial, you said that you might look at the double-jeopardy provisions. Are you prepared to give an assurance that any amendments at stage 2—I suppose that that is what we are talking about—will take into consideration that any right of the Crown, if that is the direction of travel that you choose, should be clearly set out in the legislation?

What I am getting at is that, although I think that the Lord Advocate made a fair point, we have to consider that a future Lord Advocate might take a different approach. The Parliament should not give away powers lightly. If the Parliament, in legislating for the provisions in the bill, feels that some allowance should be made for the Crown to move to a retrial, that should not be a wide provision. I would be deeply concerned if the Parliament did not have the final say on that, because it cannot be divorced from what we are looking at right now. Can you give me an assurance that, if you were looking at such an approach, you would ensure that it was based on a parliamentary decision? Does that make sense?