Chamber and committees

It might be helpful if you give a quick run-through, if there is such a thing.

It is helpful for us to understand a bit about the background detail and just how robust the research was, so that was very helpful. Eamon Keane, would you like to come in on anything?

The joint submission that you sent to the committee supports the removal of the not proven verdict. Professor Leverick, what does the Scottish jury research tell us about the use and impact of that particular verdict?

That is very helpful in setting out the context and the reality of the limitations that you faced in your research.

Can I tease out a little bit more about the strengths of the process that you engaged in while running what was obviously a big piece of work?

Professor Leverick, I want to pick up on the point that you made earlier about the potential for not proven to be used almost as a compromise verdict. That is linked to the issue of public confidence.

In your submission, you have a section headed

“Arguments against the retention of the not proven verdict”.

You say that the first argument is around stigma—we can maybe come to that. You go on to say:

“The second argument is that it risks a loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system, as it allows jurors to use it as a compromise verdict to bring deliberations to an end rather than engaging in more rigorous discussions. There is empirical evidence from the Scottish Jury Research that the verdict operates in precisely this way, with participants using it to bring deliberations to a premature end.”

How important is the issue of public confidence in the deliberations? What are your observations in and around that, in particular from the research that you have done?

Professor Leverick, I want to pick up on the point that you made about sexual offences. In your submission, you said:

“There was also evidence that this use”—

that is, the use of not proven—

“was ‘read into’ the verdict outcome by sexual offence complainers, undermining their belief that jurors discharged the weighty responsibility placed upon them with appropriate diligence.”

That is quite powerful commentary.

I see that John Swinney and Sharon Dowey want to come back in.

John Swinney wants to come in with a supplementary.

Will the member take an intervention?

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its pesticides policy, how it monitors any impact of the use of pesticides on the rural environment, including watercourses. (S6O-02805)