Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have not received any apologies.

Our first item of business is an evidence session on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I welcome to the meeting Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. We will also be joined by a number of officials at various points during the meeting.

I intend to allow up to two and a half hours for the evidence session. We will stop for a comfort break, and I will suspend the meeting as we move between parts of the bill so that officials can change over. I remind members to keep their questions specific to the part of the bill that we are looking at at the time.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make some opening remarks.

We have to move on. If there is time at the end, I am happy to come back to members who have further questions on part 4 of the bill.

We move on to part 5, which contains the provisions that relate to the creation of a sexual offences court. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware that, last week, Lord Matthews gave evidence to the committee during which he said:

“The judiciary is, broadly speaking, in favour of the proposal for a sexual offences court. We agree with the thinking of and the conclusions drawn by Lady Dorrian’s review group, for the various reasons that she has set out. Despite a number of statutory interventions over the years and the best efforts of everyone involved, the pace of change has been glacial, and we have not been able to effect the cultural change that we think is needed, because reform has been piecemeal.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 31 January 2024; c 21]

We have, of course, heard other concerns about the proposals on resourcing, sentencing powers and the ability of the Lord Justice General to remove judges. Have you had an opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we have heard, and are you able to provide some reassurance on the concerns that have been raised?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That helpfully leads on to my next question. The evidence that we have heard reflects broad support for the proposal to abolish the not proven verdict, but we have been less clear about the extent of support for the proposed jury size change from 15 jurors to 12 and the associated majority required. Concerns have been expressed that that might make it harder to secure convictions. Indeed, the Lord Advocate expressed her concern about the proposal when she gave evidence last week.

Have you reflected on the concerns that have been raised? If so, what is your view on what we have heard? How might you respond to those concerns?

Probably both.

We are running over time, but this is a vitally important discussion.

I have a final question on the proposals about anonymity for victims. The written and oral evidence that we have received indicates that there is significant support for victims of sexual offences to have a statutory protection of their anonymity. Some issues were raised in relation to that, however. One question was whether protection of anonymity should extend beyond the death of a victim, and it was coupled with a right for family members to waive that. Can the cabinet secretary respond to that point?

Thank you. Members will have similar questions about the composition of juries and majorities.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will start with questions on part 4 of the bill, which is on the abolition of the not proven verdict and on changes to jury majorities. As you said, the committee has heard a range of views on the proposals on both issues. Is the Scottish Government still persuaded that the not proven verdict should be abolished? If so, will you outline the reasons for that?

We have about 15 minutes left, and I still have five members who want to come in. If we can have fairly brief questions and succinct answers, that would be helpful.

That allows to come in nicely with my follow-up question, which is about what you anticipate the pilot would explore. For example, does it seek to examine the impact on conviction rates, the experience for survivors and the resource implications? I am interested to get a wee bit more detail on what questions the pilot might ask and what it seeks to evaluate.