Chamber and committees

A major part of the evaluation will look at the experiences of everybody involved—that is, lawyers, victims and the accused—and I am sure that the judiciary will also have their own reflections. It is important that we gather the views and the experiences of everybody involved, and it is imperative that we do so in a rounded way. I hope that that answers your question.

I do not think that is avoiding scrutiny.

With respect, I have outlined lots of detail today, notwithstanding that people seek further information. We have also published a lot of information, I might add. We will always endeavour to be as transparent and timeous as possible in conveying the decisions that we have to make and will make.

There are two issues. I note that Lady Dorrian also said that, if people stick to the timescales, there should not be any undue impact from delays.

She also gave a commentary on the disclosure process, and I note that others shared her views. I confirm that we are looking to use amendments to simplify that area. As envisaged, the process has the Crown Office applying to the court to release information to the victim’s representative. That process could be more efficient and abbreviated. There was some suggestion that, bearing in mind the scope of a section 275 application, which is very clear about the evidence to be shared, the Crown Office should not need to go to court.

Some aspects of the issue are about court processes. I have indicated that we will lodge amendments on and around that, but there are other aspects around ensuring that people and resources are available for people to access independent legal representation.

Jeff Gibbons, is there anything that you would like to add in answer to Mr Findlay’s question?

It was remiss of me not to mention the work of the victims task force, which is very much focused on the quality and nature of communication, whether verbal or written.

The evidence is clear that, if we go from three verdicts to two, that will increase convictions across the board in all cases. We need to ensure that we keep the balance and the integrity in our system if we are turning up the dial a little bit on the basis that there are other aspects—in particular, how the jury system is constructed—that influence outcomes, particularly in finely balanced cases, as opposed to just the facts and circumstances.

It is a balance, and I hear those voices. I think that that is the part of the bill that I have wrestled with most and it is the part that I will continue to wrestle with most, because it is about how we ensure that we minimise the risk of increasing miscarriages of justice. Members will have heard Lord Matthews talk about whether a majority of one is sufficient for decisions on innocence or guilt or beyond reasonable doubt in the most serious cases. That applies to all cases, of course. The jury reforms and the abolition of the not proven verdict would apply to all cases.

In many respects, that part of the bill is almost a stand-alone reform. It is not unrelated to the experience of victims in terms of transparency and the very strong views that victims have, particularly about the not proven verdict. I suppose that, in other parts of the bill, there is a much stronger correlation to improving that experience. The point that I am trying to make is that, wherever we land on that matter and, indeed, other matters, it is about the confidence in our system to maintain fairness to both parties, whether that is the complainer or the accused.

I am trying to seek as much consensus as possible on the bill. Through our consultation, the other working groups, the work that flowed from various research and other work that has underpinned the bill, such as Lady Dorrian’s work, we are trying, in the interest of our justice system and its standing in our society, as well as the interests of complainers and the accused, to build as much consensus as possible. We consider our position, as it stands, as doing our best to reach that consensus.

You are right in saying that we are currently an outlier on three fronts in the jury system. However, the way that corroboration features in our system also makes us different. We have taken on board the research and the views that were expressed through the consultation. The continued existence of corroboration, notwithstanding the Lord Advocate’s successful reference to the appeal court, means that our position just now is that we should have a qualified majority. Instead of the jury convicting on seven out of 12, it would convict on eight out of 12.

I assure you that I am trying very hard to answer your question, Ms McNeill.

We can share new information or reshare information that has already been in the public domain, if that aids discussions and deliberations. That is not a problem. The proviso is that decisions are still to be made about the criteria and the time limit—for example, whether it is to be a year or two years—and about some of the processes around evaluation.

My views are emerging on much of that, including what should be in legislation—because more detail on the pilot could be put in legislation—so you will forgive me for also being keen to understand the committee’s deliberation, in its stage 1 report.

I can share more information now. I am just highlighting that some decisions are not absolutely made yet, because further engagement is, I hope, on-going with people who have fundamental objections to the pilot. However, I am absolutely open to the suggestion that, if there is need for more detail in the bill, as opposed to leaving all the detail to regulations, which was the original plan, it will be anchored in the bill, then we would come back to Parliament with more detailed regulations.

The change will not happen without secondary legislation, but if we can anchor more information in the bill and make more information public, we will do that. Before the bill passes, and before we get to stages 2 and 3, we will have made more definitive decisions on the back of further consultation about the shape and size of the change.

But the evidence for the abolition of not proven goes way beyond that. It far exceeds the fact that we are an outlier—