Chamber and committees

I will bring in Fulton MacGregor. We are just coming up to the end of the evidence session, so I ask you to be brief, please.

We have about 10 minutes left, so I will bring in Rona Mackay.

Thank you. Sheriff Cubie, do you want to add anything before I open questioning to members?

Thank you. I know that members will want to come back to look at that a lot more closely.

I welcome our second panel for today: the Rt Hon Lord Matthews, senator of the College of Justice; and Sheriff Andrew Cubie, sheriff of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, appeal sheriff and temporary High Court judge. Welcome to you both; we are very grateful that you have been able to give up time to join us this morning.

I intend to allow up to 90 minutes for this panel. I propose that we focus our questions initially on the proposal for a new sexual offences court, before moving on to jury majorities, the proposals for a pilot for judge-led trials in certain rape cases, the proposals for independent legal representation for complainers, and, finally, anonymity for victims of sexual offences.

I understand that neither of our witnesses wishes to make an opening statement, so I will open up with a couple of general questions.

The first is on the proposals for the specialist sexual offences court. I will come to Lord Matthews first and then to Sheriff Cubie. What are your views—I mean, rather, what are the views of the judiciary—on the idea of creating a specialist sexual offences court? Is it supported, and if so, why?

I have a follow-up question for Lord Matthews. I am interested in the views of the judiciary on what the Scottish Government is proposing for how the new court might operate and what it would look like, given that it is not being proposed as a new division of the High Court.

I will ask the question in a different way. As a committee, what should we be thinking about with regard to what a pilot is seeking to achieve? Again, the judiciary has a range of views on that.

Thank you. I found your written submission fascinating. I had not known that there was quite so much in and around the subject, so it was really interesting to get your perspective. From your very informed and expert perspective, what are your general views on the provisions that are set out in the bill?

We have spoken a lot about social media, and I was interested in your response about how it appears that there are greater restrictions on broadcast media than there are on social media. Many social media platforms sit outwith the UK. How difficult would that make our scrutiny of how social media companies are upholding anonymity for victims?

I will stay with you, Professor Chalmers, before I open up to other members. You referred—I think that I am quoting you correctly—to the challenge of

“unravelling what is going on”,

looking across the wider body of evidence and research work that has been undertaken around rape myths.

In trying to understand the issue, how important is it that we are aware of, and take into account, the purpose of individual pieces of research and the context in which they were developed? I am thinking about avoiding the risk of comparing apples with pears with regard to what happens in one jurisdiction as set against another. How important is it that we are aware of that when we are considering what the evidence is telling us?