Chamber and committees

In a sense, therefore, the fact that the bill is predicated on the assumption that publishing is the preserve not of institutions but of individuals gives you confidence, with regard to the research work that you have undertaken in looking at other jurisdictions, that it represents what one might describe as the strongest foundation for providing lifelong anonymity.

Convener, could I come in before that?

It would be closer to £1 million, I would say.

My last question relates to your comment that Scotland would be in a unique position if we were to embark on these proposals. Of course, Scotland is in a unique position just now, because we have three verdicts. I am not yet persuaded that replacing one unique situation with another in that respect is much of a step forward, in particular given the serious issues that you have placed on the record today.

Given your formidable track record in the prosecution of crimes in the area that is of concern to the committee, what do you consider to be the standard and the scale of the challenge that corroboration, as a unique feature of the Scottish criminal justice system, places in the prosecution of crimes of this nature? Comparatively, how much greater is the hurdle to get a conviction given the requirement for corroboration, which is not being challenged or changed in any way by the legislation that is before us? How high is the hurdle resulting from corroboration that needs to be overcome? What do we need to be mindful of in addressing the implications of the height of that hurdle, in respect of the sensitive decision on which we have to comment to Parliament?

I have questions on part 4 of the bill in relation to the composition of juries. Will you share any issues that you believe that the committee needs to be mindful of in the consideration of the parts of the bill that relate to the change to the jury majority provisions from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority? What should the committee consider in relation to that proposal?

Is it the position of the judiciary that, if we abolish not proven, we should retain 15 as the jury size and a threshold of 10 should be arrived at for conviction?

I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their important and valuable work.

Lady Dorrian, when she appeared before the committee, made an important point in respect of what we are talking about. She said that, until the age of social media, the common assumption was that an anonymity provision existed, because it was, in essence, voluntarily respected by what one might call the established media, but we are now in a very different era.

Following the convener’s line of questioning, I am interested in whether you believe that the bill’s provisions cast the net wide enough to address not only the current media that we know about but the media that we might not know about, which might be yet to come.

Thank you, Lord Advocate—you have provided the committee with a substantial and important answer in that respect.

I want to explore a couple of details in your answer. The first relates to the question that you raised, understandably, about what happens in a 12-member jury where the decision is reached by a majority of seven to five, and the two-thirds majority that is proposed in the bill is not reached.

Can you spell out to the committee what you, and the Crown, would consider to be the dangers for public confidence in the criminal justice system as a consequence of the proposed change? For all time, in the Scottish courts, simple majorities have resulted in convictions. We would suddenly be embarking on a position in which a simple majority would not be good enough, but there may still be a majority. What are the Crown’s thoughts on that with regard to the implications for public confidence in the justice system?

Is it fair for the committee to assume, Lord Advocate, that your view is that, were we to enact the changes to the jury majority provision, we would be making the challenge of securing convictions greater—given that your success with the Lord Advocate’s reference has improved the prospects—and that it could be characterised as one step forward and two steps back?

Are there any other safeguards that the Parliament could consider putting in place that, in the judiciary’s view, would be compatible with abolishing not proven and maintaining a simple majority on a two-verdict outcome? Are there other safeguards that the Parliament could consider to address some of that anxiety, without opening up what I certainly air in this committee as a question—I do not think that the public is that engaged with this—that, under the bill’s proposals, we could actually have a majority in favour of conviction, but not a good enough majority?