The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1467 contributions
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
I just want to carry on with that line of discussion with Mr Macleod. One of the fundamental conclusions emerging from the evidence is that, whichever bit of this Rubik’s cube you move around, there will be implications for other bits of the Rubik’s cube. We are trying to feel our way towards where the right balance lies in protecting the process of justice. I am interested in the extent to which you can illuminate our discussions with where you think the greatest risks lie in changing the existing arrangements. We do not want to end up in a worse position; clearly, we want to end up in a better position.
I am keen to explore where that all rests, given the key factors that we have to bear in mind in what might change and what might produce different outcomes from those that we currently have in the criminal justice system.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
My final question is on the vexed question that you put in front of us about a seven to five majority for a guilty verdict that then leads to an acquittal. In the other jurisdictions with which we are often compared, where you might have an eight to four or a nine to three guilty verdict leading to an acquittal, to what degree is there public concern about such a result?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
Okay.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
If we were to address Pauline McNeill’s point about the perennial discussion of the not proven verdict, it might help us to understand exactly what “not proven” means. I am struck by the reference in the faculty’s written submission, which describes not proven as a “measured means of acquittal.” I would be grateful for an explanation of the thinking behind that description of the not proven verdict. What does it actually mean?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
A matter of emphasis about what?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
There is probably another sentence that goes with that that is about the interpretation of a not proven verdict. In the circumstances in which the Crown has been deemed to have failed to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury is unconvinced that the individual is not guilty, does it suggest that they are somehow—forgive my colloquialism—sort of guilty?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
A judge, however, in answering a jury’s question about the difference between the two verdicts will say, “There is no difference”. Am I correct?
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
Mr Murray, the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association’s written submission states:
“a juror may think that the accused is guilty but be unsure as to whether or not the Crown have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is this lack of assurance as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, alongside a belief that an accused may not be innocent, that requires there to be a third option.”
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
That suggests to me that there is some residual doubt about the accused, given that—to go back to the point that Mr Renucci made a moment ago—a judge, in answering the question, will say that there are two types of acquittal.
Criminal Justice Committee
Meeting date: 13 December 2023
John Swinney
Is the point that it leaves people feeling differently about the verdict accepted?