Chamber and committees

Thank you. Unless any member wishes to object or comment, that completes our deliberation of those SSIs.

I will bring in Maggie Chapman and then Ash Regan and Rachael Hamilton.

Agenda item 3 should only take a short moment, so I ask members to remain in their seats. I remind all members that this business is not part of our deliberations on transgender prisoners.

Are members content that the amendment regulations should come into force?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next item of business is the continuation of our stage 1 evidence taking on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. Today, we start phase 3 of our scrutiny, focusing specifically on parts 5 and 6 of the bill, which cover the establishment of a new sexual offences court, anonymity for victims of sex offences, independent legal representation for complainers and the proposal for a pilot for judge-led trials in certain rape cases.

We are joined by the Rt Hon Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, who I welcome to the meeting. I refer members to papers 1 to 3. I intend to allow around 75 minutes for this evidence session.

I have an opening question for the Lord Advocate. The Crown Office submission expressed support for the creation of a specialist sexual offences court but detailed some concerns about the practical application of such a court. What are your reasons for supporting the idea of a specialist court? Will you expand on some of the concerns that were raised?

Sharon Dowey is indicating that she wants to ask a very short question.

On that note, we will bring this part of the meeting to a close. I thank the Lord Advocate for joining us for what has been a very interesting and useful session.

There will be a short suspension to allow for a change of witnesses.

Okay—I am now going to open it up to members. I call Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Sharon Dowey.

Thank you, Lady Dorrian. That was a helpful opening overview of the backdrop to the review and the amount of work that has been done over a number of years. I am interested in what you said about trying to introduce new ways of thinking to transform procedures that are rooted in the Victorian era.

I will open with a general question about the second recommendation in the report, which relates to the establishment of a sexual offences court. It sets out a wide range of key features, including pre-recorded evidence, judicial case management and many others. I am interested in whether the review considered, from a practical perspective, whether similar benefits might be achieved through the implementation of specialism in existing court structures, in particular given that the number of sexual offences cases that are reported to the Crown Office is steadily increasing.

I am closely watching the time. I will come in with a couple of final questions.

In response to questions from Russell Findlay on the rape trial pilot, you used the phrase “evidence gathering” in relation to the purpose and objective of the pilot. I am interested in knowing whether the review considered the risk that the pilot could impact or influence the outcome of a case, just by virtue of the fact that a case was being heard as part of a pilot. Another issue is that an accused person who is convicted might have a right of appeal, again by virtue of the fact that their case was heard as part of a pilot. Did the review group consider those points?

Thank you—that is helpful. I know that Pauline McNeill wants to come in, so I will ask my final question, which is on the anonymity of victims. The report recommends “express legislative protection” for the anonymity of victims of sexual offences. I am interested in hearing about the reasons for that recommendation. What difference do you think that such protection would make to victims?