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 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 18 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1322 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Liam Kerr

I have a brief follow-up, minister. Concerns have been raised that dealing with reform in this way—in other words, through amendments that put in something completely new at stage 2—is less than satisfactory. Arguably, it precludes proper consultation and scrutiny, not least because, as we have heard today, you have no idea of the costs and format of the victim contact team, and you have also talked about not being sure about getting the data sharing through. Do you have a view on whether this is an appropriate way of making legislation?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Liam Kerr

Indeed.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Liam Kerr

Thank you.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Liam Kerr

It is indeed an unusual approach. You have said that we all want to see progress and that there has been plenty of engagement with victims groups, but last week, Victim Support Scotland told the committee that it was worried that the introduction of a new victim contact team was

“counterintuitive, potentially costly and potentially unnecessary”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 4 December 2024; c 24.]

Therefore, there is at least a risk that you might be lodging amendments that do not have the support of victims organisations. We do not even know what this is going to look like. What would be your response if it turned out that victims groups were not supportive of the detail of the amendments?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 December 2024

Liam Kerr

That is not what I asked about, however; I asked what your response would be if it turned out, once you had lodged the amendments, that victims groups were not supportive of what you were proposing.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Liam Kerr

Good morning. I remind the committee, witnesses and anyone who is watching of my interests, in that I am a practising solicitor and I am regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.

At stage 1, the cabinet secretary told the committee—these are my words—that the system needs to be considered holistically, such that, if you remove the not proven verdict, you need to do something with the jury size, for example. That view was reflected in Stuart Munro’s opening remarks.

Now, of course, the cabinet secretary is winding back on jury size but increasing the majority that is needed for a conviction. Michael Meehan, in the faculty’s view, does adding two to the majority provide sufficient safeguards in light of the removal of the verdict? Is there any evidence to suggest that a two-thirds majority is appropriate in a two-verdict system?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Liam Kerr

I will be brief. I have a question on section 40—I will put it to Michael Meehan, but the other two gentlemen can come in if they wish.

Section 40 concerns the appointment and tenure of judges, and section 40(7) to 40(9) concerns the removal of judges. That can currently be done without reasons being given. The committee raised concerns about the proposed changes in that regard at stage 1. In your view, is there a concern that the threat of removal without reasons could risk impacting the independence of decision making?

In any event, given that the cabinet secretary has signalled a willingness to lodge amendments to the removal process, what would those amendments need to look like, in your view, to ameliorate any risk?

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Liam Kerr

I understand—thank you.

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Liam Kerr

On that exact point, with regard to making decisions and the lack of evidence, you mentioned that the powers available to judges in England are different to those that are available in Scotland in relation to evidence and the ability to deal with the matter. Stuart Munro, I presume that it cannot be as simple as mapping the English system, say, on to the Scottish system without consideration of the wider powers that are available to judges. If that is right, is there a more general risk that this Parliament is being asked to legislate on cornerstones of the system without fully appreciating those wider powers, such as are available to judges in England but not to judges in Scotland?

12:15  

Criminal Justice Committee

Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 December 2024

Liam Kerr

Simon Brown, on that point, the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, such that, if there is any reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. Are you aware of any other two-verdict system in which it could be suggested that 10 out of 15 jurors would mean that the decision met that burden?