Chamber and committees

Yes, I have acknowledged that—

You then have to decide from there. In the current system, if you have that doubt, you choose which verdict to give.

I note your point about the Faculty of Advocates. Last week, we heard evidence from Professor Fiona Leverick, who expressed the same concerns about removing the third verdict, or one of the verdicts. She said that she was concerned about the current proposals because they are out of step with the rest of the world. I wondered whether you had heard that.

I was just asking whether you knew what Fiona Leverick had said to the committee. She is not from the Faculty of Advocates. I was just pointing out that she gave that evidence to the committee, and we have to consider it.

Thank you—that is a fair point.

Lastly, aside from the three verdicts, you do not see why the current system should change. Is it fair to highlight, however, that we currently have three verdicts and that that is why—as Joe Duffy said earlier—we convict on a majority of one? At present, someone can be tried and convicted of murder or rape on the difference of one vote. That is the reason why, if we were to remove one of the verdicts, the Government would also look at the ratio of the jury. Is it fair to say that we should look at the ratio if we take away one of the verdicts?

I realise that that is not where you are coming from—you just feel that there should be more convictions. However, we must look not just at rape trials but at all trials.

Would it not be fair, therefore, for the Government to look at the majority issue?

I totally acknowledge that. However, it is that issue that I am questioning you on. Conviction is possible on a majority of one. Surely, without any bias in favour of one view or the other, you can see that, if one of the verdicts is taken away, it would be fair to look at the ratio of the jury, in order to create a balanced system. You might come up with a different answer—such as eight or 10—but is it not fair to look at the issue?

Good morning. This is complicated—I will say that.

I apologise if my questions do not make sense, but I will try my best.

When you explained the mock trials in your answer to the convener, you talked about the way that mock juries view a not proven verdict against a not guilty verdict. You said that, in cases in which the juries would say, “We just do not think the evidence is there,” they would select not proven. When we are looking at the issue, it is important to frame it in the context that, as well as explaining the differences between the verdicts, the judge will give direction to the jury.

Is it fair to say that the presence of reasonable doubt is key? The jury will be told, “When there is reasonable doubt, you should not convict.” If you work back from that, is it fair to say that, if a juror had doubts about conviction, either way, the verdict that they would give would not be guilty? Is it fair to say that that context is quite important?

I want to examine a paragraph on page 6 of our paper 1. It says:

“In respect of the changes to the majority required for conviction, we say in the Criminal Law Review article that ‘the Scottish Jury Research [found] that jurors were more likely to favour conviction in a system of two verdicts than when the not proven verdict was available.’”