Chamber and committees

You have said quite a lot.

Good morning. I put my first question to Stuart Munro. The question of the three-verdict system has long been debated in Scotland. You might remember that Michael McMahon, a Labour Party member, introduced a bill on the issue many years ago. If the Parliament decides to retain the not proven verdict, do you think that we will always be discussing the three-verdict system, given that it is unusual? Secondly, do you think that the Government’s rationale for changing it is clear?

Yes, thank you. None of us, apart from Katy Clark, has practised criminal law in the courts, so we are learning as we go. What I am really driving at is this: is it fair to say that the instructions that the jury will be given will be primarily around the Crown proving its case beyond reasonable doubt? In other words, the first question is not about what verdict you are going to choose. Is it fair to say that the jury will be directed to decide guilt or innocence, and then have to decide which verdict is appropriate?

I have one final question for Ronnie Renucci. We have been hearing that the not proven verdict is used a lot in rape cases. Have you any comment on whether, in your experience—I realise that this is just your evidence—there is a tendency for not proven verdicts in rape cases?

I understand. Do you have any view on why that is?

Thank you. That is really helpful.

I said to the previous panel that most of us are laypeople so are a bit unfamiliar with a lot of practices, certainly in relation to prosecution policy. Broadly speaking, when you are marking a case—for example, a rape case—I presume that there is some guidance for prosecutors on how to decide whether the evidence is there to take a case forward. Is it harder to do that in rape cases than in other cases?

Do you think that it would be a good use of the Parliament’s time to take through the necessary legislation to allow for research such as that done by Cheryl Thomas?

My final question is about the numbers on the jury if the not proven verdict were to be removed. The profession would prefer a unanimous jury but would accept, as in England, a majority of 10 to two. I understand that your fundamental position is to retain the not proven verdict. Ronnie Renucci, can you talk the committee through what, you think, the Crown would have to show in order to get a conviction? To a layperson, you are saying that the jury is required to have a unanimous verdict before you could convict, and that sounds like it would be really difficult to get a conviction, whereas a majority of 10 to two seems to allow for it. However, of course, we do not understand how juries operate or the proceedings of a court.

That is helpful. Finally, given the hundreds of cases that you have—

I understand most of it, but I just want to clarify that, as the proposals stand—not for the other suggestion—it is still the Crown’s position that there should be the option of a retrial under the Government’s proposal for a majority of eight to four. Would you still argue for that?