Chamber and committees

Yes, but you are saying that they are peers. I could be put on a jury to hear a case about a sexual assault involving an 18-year-old, but I am living in a different world.

Mr Di Rollo?

Thank you.

I was interested in Professor Munro’s comment a moment ago that having juryless trials can affect the tone of a case. I am particularly interested in that point. Could you perhaps elaborate on that, Professor Munro? What particular elements of a judge-only trial could be enhanced or developed to enable proper and fair justice for all parties to be better assured than it is under our current arrangements?

Can you pause there, Mr Di Rollo? The contrast that you have just drawn for the committee—that the difference in tone and approach is in being impressionistic versus analytical—is fundamental to our consideration of what the arguments are for a single-judge trial.

Thank you. Professor Thomas, would you like to reflect on that?

Good morning. I do not know whether all the witnesses were here for the previous evidence session with the legal academics, but I want to highlight one of the points that I explored with Professor Munro. She made a remark about how judge-only trials could affect the tone of a case. I am particularly interested in that point. Does the panel believe that there is a problem with the tone of sexual crime cases in Scotland today? Maybe Mr Lenehan could start on that.

When reading the submissions, all that I am seeing are all the reasons for not doing something. The committee must address the reforms, which, by necessity, are significant. If we take a piecemeal approach, which, if I may say so, is what the submissions seem to me to be suggesting should happen, we will be back having this conversation in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. Do you see my dilemma?

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Do you not think that the difference between there being a jury and there not being a jury, given the very helpful distinction that Mr Di Rollo put on the record between impressionistic, performative issues for the jury and analytical presentation to a judge, would fundamentally affect the experience of a complainer? I cannot for a moment imagine that your line of questioning to a witness would be the same in those two different contexts.

Do any of the other witnesses want to reflect on my points?