Chamber and committees

I will not go into this today, but aspects such as rights of audience and who prosecutes will, by necessity, involve the creation of two tiers.

The point, convener, is that at the moment it is not a decision for the prosecutor. Murder is automatically tried in the High Court. No Lord Advocate or prosecutor can take it to any other court, because it is the highest court. My concern remains.

I realise that my question should be directed to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because the bill leaves it open for a prosecutor to allow the prosecution of a murder in the sexual offences court. That is a matter for the cabinet secretary.

Is that your evidence?

I misunderstood what you said to Russell Findlay.

If the bill were passed, the rights of audience would change. That would mean that sheriffs could sit in the specialist court, although they cannot sit in the High Court at the moment—

I said this to the Lord Advocate, as I was trying to envisage in my own mind what the court would look like. Given the rise in sexual offences that we know about, the new specialist sexual offences court will be substantially large. Does that suggest that there might be a shift in resource to it? What discussions have you had with the Government about the resource implications of its proposal?

Lady Dorrian, I will put this question to the senators when they come, but given that the convener asked about juryless trials, I will ask you. Am I right in saying that, normally, the jury would decide the evidence that it believed but that the judge would decide the law? Does that mean that, in a juryless trial, the judge would also decide on the evidence? Does that mean that there is a different process for a judge to go through in a juryless trial because they would not normally decide the evidence and the jury would make those decisions?

Thank you. I think that that is what those interested would expect. In the many proposals in this Parliament over the years about how we should deal with rape cases, maintaining the seriousness of rape, which currently can be prosecuted only in the High Court, has been really important. It is important to me, certainly, and, I know, to many others. Should we legislate to ensure that, because a future Lord Advocate might take a different view? That would be my worry. I am very content with your answer, but I am interested in protecting that fine line. I can think of cases that should, in my opinion, have gone to the High Court, but that fine line—because of the seriousness of the offence—has not been understood. I completely take the point that there are many factors to consider, but I feel really strongly that there should be no change to who prosecutes, who has rights of audience and who represents the accused, even if we are changing the nature of the court. Could you respond to that?

Thank you very much. Some of us attended a round-table discussion with Rape Crisis Scotland. As you would expect, and as you have said in your evidence, we heard that the experience of rape and sexual offences victims is just appalling. However, one survivor who came to the round table had had a completely different experience, which was very recent. She talked about how she got some time with the advocate depute and her positive experience. I take from that that perhaps there are already some changes in the system.

I appreciate all the implications for resources in asking this question, but is being able to have a meeting with the advocate depute prosecutor a standard practice? I have heard of cases where victims have sat in complete frustration in the court because they feel that the prosecutor has not mentioned something that is really important. I fully appreciate the independence of the practitioner and realise that that is an important principle, but should there be more exposure of victims in relation to the prosecution of their cases?

So it could be in Glasgow High Court, but it would be called something else.