Chamber and committees

I will not repeat what I said earlier, other than to acknowledge that there are some very fine judgments to be made on that matter. I have to recognise that there are particular challenges with sexual offence cases, and I have no doubt that we will continue to pursue that issue.

I also have to recognise that the evidence, as it stands, shows that the balance is tilted when you move from three verdicts to two and that the raison d’être of all our reforms is absolutely to improve access to justice but in a way that improves life and experience for complainers without compromising the rights of the accused.

Alastair, would you like to add further detail in response to Mr Swinney’s question?

I do not know what research or evidence the committee has looked at. The meta-analysis to which I referred was published last month. It is an independent bit of research by Jackson et al. It is a quantitative meta-analysis that is based on data sets from 10 different mock trials.

Again, I would point to something in the research, which we can share with the committee if that would be helpful. It says that

“the results are ... unambiguous: there is a statistically significant effect towards lower conviction rates under the Scottish three-verdict system than under an Anglo-American two-verdict system”

and that that effect was seen across offences

“ranging from death by negligence to physical assault, rape and homicide.”

We can share that research with the committee.

Even if all aspects of the bill are passed, parts of our system could still be described as unique.

We are not grafting a new court that is being built from the ground up and a new way of working on to existing court systems, purely because that would mean that changes would be iterative, as opposed to seismic.

Andrew Baird, you have longevity in this issue.

There will be other surviving witnesses who have experienced sexual abuse or a sexual offence, and the proposal provides the flexibility to acknowledge the needs of those victims and witnesses—

There are two points to your question. What would be evaluated—the empirical information or evidence that is gathered—is about efficiency and effectiveness, experience and the outcome of the trial. Can we publish more detailed information on that? The short answer is yes. The working group worked on that information, and I will check in a moment on what we have and have not published. We published a fact sheet. I will ask Heather Tully to remind me of the detail.

I have not been to Norway as yet.

Yes.

It would always have to be based on a parliamentary decision, because, irrespective of its merits or otherwise, the right to a retrial would be a significant departure from what we have now. That is not to say that it should not be considered or scrutinised, but it would nonetheless be a significant change that I contend would need to be looked at properly and considered fully.

I am trying to assure the committee that we will consider the Lord Advocate’s evidence—we have started that process—but that, as with all legislation, we also need to look at the detail. Where there would be significant departures, we would have to think carefully about whether stage 2 or stage 3 amendments would be appropriate for such changes. The answer to that question might be yes or no. I am trying to convey to the committee that we all need to be collectively invested in the understanding and debate around these very complex and difficult decisions.

Some people have argued for the retention of the not proven verdict on the basis of its uniqueness.