Chamber and committees

I come to my final question. You are quite correct to ask whether there should be more primary legislation on juryless trials. That is a controversial issue, as we know from the evidence that we have taken, and it has split views among members of the judiciary.

Should clear parameters be set as to what is being assessed? Let us say that the pilot—which is what it is called in the bill—is run for a year. As you have said, the Government is quite clear that we are not assessing the conviction rate. To be honest, I am not clear about how the Government will assess the pilot at the end of it and determine whether it is good or bad. I know that you cannot answer that but, in your opinion, should the criteria for assessment be clearly set out?

Sheriff Cubie, Lady Dorrian made a point to the committee about the tenure of temporary judges. As a layperson listening to that, I thought, “Temporary judges are temporary judges; they aren’t permanent judges.” There is a difference between temporary judges and judges who have sat for many years as permanent judges in the High Court. When you say that we perhaps need to look at the question of tenure, do you mean that there would be a fixed term so that the question of the independence of the judge and the appointment by the Lord President would not be compromised?

That is helpful to know.

Your evidence so far has been really helpful. Bear in mind that we have only been aware of the proposals since they were published. Russell Findlay is quite right to have said this, and you said it yourself, Dr Tickell: some things are not necessarily as straightforward as we first think. The issue of anonymity is a good example in that respect.

I will start with Seonaid Stevenson-McCabe. Under the proposals, what exactly are the differences between children and adults in relation to how anonymity is lifted?

Right. I understand.

It would seem so.

My understanding with regard to jigsaw identification is that that is why we are legislating for anonymity in the first place: so that you cannot piece things together and say, “It must be that person”. We are talking about the defences. You are clear that you do not have any concerns that a good lawyer could drive a coach and horses through the last defence that you described.

Good afternoon. I have a number of questions about your submission.

I want to start with the specialist court. Lady Dorrian’s report suggests that it should be a division of the High Court. If it was a division of the High Court, perhaps we would not need all these exchanges about rights of audience and whether sheriffs could sit in it. Do you think that the Government has overcomplicated the situation with what it has put in the bill?

The case is the same in section 55, which says that provision for procedures of the court could be made by regulations.

You described a hierarchy of courts, in which you do not see the sexual offences court as provided for in the bill. Section 46 of the bill says that, “on cause shown”, a case can be transferred from the sexual offences court to the High Court or the sheriff court. Does that speak to the point that you are making? Does section 46 indicate that the sexual offences court would be a lower court than the High Court? Is that fair?