Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not disagreeing.

I am just trying to get my head around the point that you are uncomfortable with a simple majority, but you acknowledge that the reason for having a simple majority is that we have three verdicts.

Just finally, in England, is it 10 out of 12 jurors?

Good morning. This is complicated—I will say that.

I apologise if my questions do not make sense, but I will try my best.

When you explained the mock trials in your answer to the convener, you talked about the way that mock juries view a not proven verdict against a not guilty verdict. You said that, in cases in which the juries would say, “We just do not think the evidence is there,” they would select not proven. When we are looking at the issue, it is important to frame it in the context that, as well as explaining the differences between the verdicts, the judge will give direction to the jury.

Is it fair to say that the presence of reasonable doubt is key? The jury will be told, “When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict.” If you work back from that, is it fair to say that, if a juror had doubts about conviction, either way, the verdict that they would give would not be guilty? Is it fair to say that that context is quite important?

I want to examine a paragraph on page 6 of our paper 1. It says:

“In respect of the changes to the majority required for conviction, we say in the Criminal Law Review article that ‘the Scottish Jury Research [found] that jurors were more likely to favour conviction in a system of two verdicts than when the not proven verdict was available.’”

I will just read it out. The paragraph continues:

“Given proposals elsewhere in the Bill to abolish not proven and reduce jury size, without parallel reform to the jury majority requirement, this would have seen the Government proposing the combination of variables identified as most proconviction in that research ... The policy choice [made by the Government in the Bill] was a difficult one.”

The next part of the paragraph is where, for me, the complexity lies. It says:

“Raising the majority required to, say, ten out of twelve would run the risk that other reforms targeted, at least in part, at the low conviction rate in sexual offence cases may be thwarted.”

The cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, has said that the reforms are not targeted specifically at the low conviction rate.

But the important point is that we have three verdicts and a simple majority, is it not? The reason for allowing a simple majority is that we currently have three verdicts.

I have a final quick question on corroboration, which Eamon Keane mentioned. There has been a bit of discussion about the retention of the requirement for corroboration. Would you have further concerns if we removed that requirement under the current proposals in the bill, which would mean having a qualified majority and two verdicts?

It is not. It is just that some witnesses, and people with an interest, have said that they have had discussions with the Government about their views on corroboration. There has also been recent commentary from the judiciary. Who knows where we will end up on that? I just point out that there has been talk.

I have a point about FAIs. It goes back to the profile of the 86 deaths, and it applies only to a few cases. In the case of Allan Marshall, the family was distraught because they felt that there was a cover-up and they could not get any information about how he had died. We know that there was immunity from prosecution, and the Lord Advocate is taking that forward.

One of the recommendations was that families get unfettered access to prison to get information about how their loved ones died because, previously, they have not had that. They have had to wait for the FAI and, if the FAI takes years, the family gets no real answers or contact. I have asked the same question at every opportunity: will families get unfettered access? I do appreciate the situation—can you make that commitment and, at the same time, not compromise the case where there might be an allegation of criminality, such as in the case of Allan Marshall? Can you make such a commitment without that interfering with the Crown doing its job? I have never had an answer to that. On John Swinney’s point about establishing the approach to FAIs, I would say yes, if the system worked, but let us see whether we can make FAIs shorter.

However, there is this other scenario, such as in the case of the death of Allan Marshall. Families should get unfettered access to go and speak to prison governors and see where their family member died. Families should get all that. Why should they not? When the state has detained that person, why should the family be blocked from finding out as much as they would like to know about their loved one’s death? I have not had any answers to those questions but I feel strongly about that in such cases. I realise that those are a tiny percentage of the cases.