Chamber and committees

I think that you have, in relation to the trauma-informed aspect. However, I would like some more clarity. An important distinction—we have had this exchange previously—is that rape cases can go only to the High Court. In a sense, therefore, a two-tier system is a legislative necessity, because of the seriousness of those kinds of cases. I worry that it is being suggested that there is something wrong with having two tiers of crime, as is currently the case. I think that you are saying—if I have understood you correctly—that the level playing field approach concerns the specialist nature of the crime.

Would a murder case with a sexual element go to the High Court?

That is exactly the point. Who do I need to address that question to? I do not understand why that would be consistent with what the bill is trying to achieve. Do you see what I am saying? We have heard evidence about—

My final question relates to that. There have been many discussions in the Parliament about how we tackle the crime of rape, for which there seems to be a low conviction rate. It looks as though the specialist sexual offences court would not have the same status or the same rights of audience as the High Court. I assume that it has been designed that way to reflect the status of rape as a serious crime that, as a plea to the Crown, can be tried only in the High Court. If the bill does not reflect your recommendations about rights of audience, will you be concerned that the specialist sexual offences court will look like a lower court?

Thank you. Stuart Murray, you had an exchange with Katy Clark about the research that the Government is relying on. The policy memorandum is quite clear that the evidence used for removing the verdict is the research involving 900 mock jurors. Do you think that the Government would be taken more seriously on that research if we addressed the question of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and, perhaps, as a part of this bill, legislated to allow research to be done on juries and trends in juries and how they come to their decisions?

Thank you. My final set of questions is for Ronnie Renucci. You have probably seen some of the exchanges in the Official Report of this committee in relation to the three verdicts, including last week’s evidence from Joe Duffy and Rape Crisis Scotland. In your opening remarks, you talked about what the Crown had to prove. Do you think that there has been enough discussion about how the judge charges the jury, if you like? Rather than debating the cold, clinical aspects of removing a verdict, would it be more useful to discuss what the jury is actually asked to do when it is deciding on a conviction?

But that is what the provisions are.

But the Crown is not satisfied with that.

If you are right and there would be public concern, why does the Government not just legislate for a majority of seven to five?

I know what you are saying, but the legislation would not say that, if it were passed.