Chamber and committees

The fabric of the court estate is a fundamental issue. The Government is committed to continuing to make improvements to the court estate. Perhaps Ms Dowey is aware that, in the draft budget, there is not only a 9.5 per cent increase in resource funding for courts but a capital funding increase of 28 per cent. That is a significant uplift, in recognition of the need to continue to invest in the fabric of our buildings to ensure that all the correct arrangements are made for the safety, security and wellbeing of victims and witnesses.

That is possible, but the bill includes clear duties on participants and agents across the justice system. Those who participate in the sexual offences court will have to have undergone trauma-informed training. It is not for me to define the content and the nature of the courses; that would be a matter for the sexual offences court. The view might be that additional training is required.

I am very pleased to say that the draft budget that is being considered by the Parliament includes a proposition for a sizeable uplift of 11.66 per cent for the Crown Office, which equates to £21.2 million. There has been in excess of a 50 per cent increase in resources for the Crown Office since the start of the previous parliamentary session. More recent figures show that, in 2019-20, the resource input into the Crown Office was £113 million. In the draft budget, the amount is now £203 million, so that is a sizeable increase.

The Crown Office negotiates, as I do, with the finance secretary every year on the budget. In the past, the Crown Office has benefited from significant additional investment—particularly resource funding, but also capital funding and some non-cash support. Overall, total investment has gone from nearly £121 million in 2019-20 to £223 million in this year’s draft budget.

It would be wrong of me to portray those as a tool—a lever or a button—that can increase conviction rates.

I am on record expressing deep concern about conviction rates. We know that, over a five-year period, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape are at 46 per cent, compared to about 84 per cent for other crimes. When we disaggregate different types of rape cases, the conviction rate for acquaintance rape is, according to the Lord Advocate, around 20 or 25 per cent. There is a difference in conviction rates depending on whether the victim is an adult or a child. From memory, in relation to children, where there has been an offence under, I think, section 18 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, the conviction rate is higher, at more than 70 per cent; in relation to adults, where the offence is prosecuted under section 1 of that act, the rate is about 35 per cent.

I cannot be unconcerned about those rates. I must respect the independence of the courts and judiciary—indeed, I am under a legal obligation to do so—but I want to find the right way to tackle the issue and I want to look at the evidence without prejudging, because we cannot ignore those conviction rates.

Sorry?

As I said, convener, the purpose of the pilot is to gather empirical evidence to inform the debate on how our justice system can most effectively respond to cases of rape or attempted rape. It poses the question whether changing the decision maker improves the complainer’s experience and removes barriers to justice.

Three working groups flowed from Lady Dorrian’s work, one of which dealt with the pilot in particular. There are three broad strands to the purpose of the pilot and what it will elicit information on.

The first strand is how everyone involved, including the victim, the accused and the lawyers, perceives the pilot.

The second strand is the impact that the pilot has on the effectiveness and efficiency of the trial process. In some of my discussions with members of the legal establishment, they have spoken to the different atmosphere, tone and even skill set that is utilised when a case is made to a judge as opposed to a jury. Would that lead to more focused deliberations? Is such a process more efficient as well as more victim centred?

The third strand is the impact on outcomes. I am not going to prejudge the outcomes of any pilot. The word “time-limited” is there for a purpose. The pilot cannot go on in perpetuity. It would have to be evaluated and a report would have to be laid before Parliament. It would then be for Parliament to make a decision on whether there would be no further action, a continuation of the proposition or the development of another proposition. The proposition is for a time-limited pilot.

We have already addressed that today.

In the pilot, there would be no option for the accused to choose whether they participate; that would be clearly defined in the criteria. The question is whether the crime that someone is accused of fits the criteria for the pilot. On victims and witnesses, I was reflecting that, right now, across the piece, no one decides which court their case is heard in or which procedure is followed.

The point that you touched on is that, invariably, we cannot pigeonhole or assume that victims and survivors are one homogenous group who have one homogeneous view. I would never assume that; I understand that there can be different views. However, we have done work as part of the consultation on our proposals, and we have had engagement with victims and witnesses and groups who represent them—of course, the committee has also heard a lot of evidence—and I would point to the fact that, although there is not unanimous support for the proposition, there is good support for it.

I am confident that a pilot will be lawful, and I am confident that, as a Government, we will comply with the European convention on human rights. People have a right to a fair trial, but they do not have a right to a jury trial. I know that people have different views on that. Bear it in mind that single-judge trials are not unique to our current system.

On appeals, you might have heard me say that one of the strengths of a pilot is that written reasons will be produced. Under the current jury system, written reasons are not produced by a jury, and the option of juries writing their judgments was dismissed by Lady Dorrian’s review. I know from engagement with other jurisdictions that there is real value in written decisions. They not only give us an insight and understanding into what has led to conviction or acquittal, but offer real transparency for the complainer and the accused. I argue that written reasons potentially enhance the rights of the accused. I cannot predict whether they will lead to more appeals from accused persons, but there is a real value in written decisions. They are used in other jurisdictions, and I think that they are very valuable.

It is not the only outcome. I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to improve access to justice for women, girls and other victims of the most heinous offences, which have lifelong consequences. We all share that.