Chamber and committees

So you are doing that anyway.

My question is about a specific point, Lord Advocate. You have given the committee a lot of food for thought about the implications of having a majority of seven to five rather than two thirds. You previously told the committee that you thought that the Crown should have a right—not an automatic right—to a retrial. Do you agree that there should be clear rules about that or transparency about what the grounds would be? I would have thought that, naturally, you would be pressurised by victims and their families to use that right in every case. Do you think that the Parliament should legislate for retrials?

Good morning. Lord Matthews, I will start by asking about a point that you made in answer to my colleague about not putting the accused’s statement to the victim, because it always results in an answer of “No”. The committee has had a lot of exchanges about the culture and the way that some defence counsel question victims. Would you have to agree that with the defence’s solicitors in order not to have to put the statement to the victim? How would that operate?

Some of those cases would have been tried in the sheriff court.

That is very helpful.

My next set of questions is about the specialist court. Your written evidence has been really helpful. If we get this right, it could be transformational.

You will be aware that the provisions in the bill do not mirror Lady Dorrian’s recommendations, in a number of ways. The sentencing powers of the specialist sexual offences court are the same as those for the High Court, but the specialist court is not the High Court. My personal view is that what we read in the bill is not what Lady Dorrian envisaged, because rights of audience will change, and there is the oddity—in my opinion—of the fact that if murder is the plea of the Crown and there is a sexual element, the case could be tried in the specialist court or in the High Court. There does not seem to me to be any real need for that. You have referred to that in your submission.

Do you think that the Government has thrown the baby out with the bath water? There seemed to be a consensus around the need for a specialist court to be a parallel court to the High Court, but what we are seeing in the draft legislation does not mirror that at all.

I envisage that, as the trial progresses, the judge will have to determine which witnesses’ stories they believe or do not believe.

Are those two things tied together?

I understand.

I have one final question. On the issue of a child who wants to share their story, which would mean going to court, can you give us any evidence as to what the court might consider?

If you are a publisher—a newspaper, for example—you might want to offer someone money in order for them to lift their anonymity. One might say, “Oh well, it’s up to the person if they want to do that”, but have they thought through all the consequences of sharing their story when the money looks good? Can you give us any evidence of what you think that the court would look at with regard to whether to allow anonymity to be waived in that case? Might they take what I have just described into consideration?